LexSHIBBAN LAL SAKSENA versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1953
Dec- 3
418
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
SHIBBA.N LAL SAKSENA
t!.
THE ST A TE OF UTT AR PRADESH
AND OTHERS.
[MuKHERJEA and N. H. BHAGWATI JJ.]
[19541
Preventive Detention .4ct IV of
1950 as
amended by
Act
XXXIV of 1952 and Act LXI of 1952-Sections 3(1) (a) and 11-
Detaining authority giving two reasons for detention-One ground
found to be non-existent-Hlhether order of detention sustainable-
Confirmation of detention
order under one ground and revocatiou
thereof under 2nd ground-Not contemplated by s. II.
The detention order \Vas n1ade containing two grounds
under
sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of clause (a) of section 3 (!)
of the Pre-
ventive Detention Act, 1950, as ani_ended by later Acts. In exercise
of the po\vers under section 11 of the Act the Government con-
firmed the detention order against the <letenu under sub-clause (ii}
of section 3 (!) (a) of the Act but as respects the second ground under
sub-clause (iii) of section 3 (I) (a) of the
Act the Government did
not uphold his <letention and revoked it under this sub-clause :
Held, that the original order made under section 3 (!) (a) is
not sustainable.
To say that the other ground \Vhich still remains
is
quite
sufficient to sustain the order would be to substitute an objective
judici:i.l test for the subjective decision of the executive authority
\vhich is against
the
legislati\'e policy
underlying the statute.
In such cases the position Vl'ould be the same as if one of these t\vo
grounds was irrelevant for the purpose of the
Act or was vvholl y
illusory and this vvould vitiate the detention order as a whole.
Keshav v. The King-Emperor(') referred to.
It is \Vell settled that the power to issue
a detention
order
under section 3 of the Preyentive Detention Act depends entirely
upon the satisfaction of the appropriate authority specified in that
section.
The sufficiency of the grounds upon which such satisfaction
purports to be based provided they have a rational probative value
and are not extraneous to the scope
or purpose of the legislati.\·c:
provision_ cannot be challenged in a court of law except on the
grounds of mala fides.
State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya(') referred to.
Section 11 of the
Preventive Detention Act lays
down what
action the Government it to take after the Advisory Board has
submitted
its
report.
If in the opinion of the Board there
is
sufficient reason for the detention of a person the Government ma\'
confirm the detention order and continue the detention
for ·sue·~
(1)
[1943] F.c.R. 88.
(2)
[1csiJ s.c.R. 167.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
419
period as it thinks proper.
On the other hand if the
Advisory
Board is of opinion that there is
no sufficient
reason for the
detention
of the
person
concerned, the CJovenunent is
in duty
bound to revoke the detention order.
Vlhat the
Government has
done in this case is to confinn the detention order and at the same
time to revoke it under one of the.sub-clauses of section 3 ( 1) (a)
of the Act.
This is not \Vhat the section contemplates.
ORIGINAL
JuRISDICTION:
Petition
No. 298
of
1953.
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India
for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.
Veda Vyas,
Senior
Advocate (S. K. Kapur,
with
him) for the petitioner.
D. P. Uniyal for the respondent.
1953.
December 3.
The Judgment of the
Court
was delivered by
MuKHERJEA J.-This is a petition under article 32
of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ, in
the nature of habeas corpus, directing the release
of the
petitioner, Shibban Lal Saksena, who is said to be
unlawfully detained in the District Jail at Gorakhpur.
The petitioner was arrested on the 5th of January,
1953, under an order, signed by the
District Magistrate
of Gorakhpur,
and the order expressly directed the
detention
of the
petitioner in
the custody
of the
Superintendent, District Jail, Gorakhpur,
under sub-
clauses (ii) and (iii) of clause (a) of section 3 (1) of the
Preventive
Detention
Act, 1950, as amended by later
Acts. On the 7th of January following, the
grounds
of detention were communicated
to the detenue in
accordance with the provision of section 7 of the Pre-
ventive Detention Act and the grounds, it
appears,
were of a two-fold character, falling respectively under
the two categories contemplated by sub-clause (ii) and
sub-clause (iii) of section 3 (1) (a) of the Act.
In the
first paragraph of thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.