SHIV PRASAD BHATNAGAR versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 81 · Decided: 05-03-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

81 
SHIV PRASAD BHATNAGAR 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. 
March 5, 1981 
( 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ] 
National Security Act-Section 12 ( 1)-Scope of-Staleness and irrelevance 
of grounds of detention-If would vitiate the order of detention. 
The petitioner was detained under section 12 (I) of the National Security 
Act on the grounds that he, alongwith his friends, in the second week of 
November, 1980 indulged in filthy abuse of Muslims, threatened their lives and 
performed "marpeet" and that he and his associates terrorised the common man 
in the area by their various criminal acts which caused disturbance to the public 
peace and public safety. 
In support of the petition it was contended' on behalf of the petitioner that 
A 
B 
c 
the reference to associates without naming even one rendered the ground vague 
D 
and, therefore, vitiated the order of detention and (2) that the incidents enume-
rated in the second ground related to the years 1974, 1975, 1977 and 1978 which 
could not be said to be proximate enough to sustain the order of detention. 
Allowing the petition, 
HELD : The detenu is entitled to be released. 
It is now well settled that grounds of detention must be pertinent and not 
irrelevant, proximate and not stale, precise and not vague. Irrelevance, staleness 
and vagueness are vices any single one of which is sufficient to vitiate the order 
of detention. [83 DJ 
In the instant case the incidents enumerated to substantiate the second 
ground show that apart from the vice of staleness from which they suffer, they 
were related to "law and order" and not to the maintenance of public order. 
They are stale because of the passage of time since the happening of some of the 
incidents; they are irrelevant because they related to law and order and not to 
maintenance of public order. [83 El 
In Re: Sushanta Goswami and Ors., [1969] 3 S.C:R. 138 followed. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 397 of 1981. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution) 
E 
F 
G 
Mrs. Shyamala Pappu, M. S. Mann, S Shukhar, Miss Raj 
Shree and Mrs. Indra Sawhney for the Petitioner. 
H 
S. K. Gambhir and Vijay Hansario for the Respondent. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1981] 3 S.C.R, 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHINNAPPA REDDY J. 
Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar is under pre-
ventive detention pursuant to an order made by the District 
Magistrate, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh. The order and the grounds 
of detention were served on him on November 28, 1980. 
The 
District Magistrate made a report of the order to the State Govern-
ment and the latter approved the detention order on December 2, 
1980. 
The 
approval 
was communicated to the 
detenu on 
December 5, 1980. 
A representation was submitted by the detenu 
on December 13, J 980. The Advisory Board constituted by the 
State Government met on January 3, 198 J, considered the material 
placed before it by the detaining authority as well as the represen-
tation and the written arguments submitted by the detenu. The 
detenu was also given a personal hearing. The Advisory Board sub-
mitted its report to the State Government on January 4, 1981. 4' 
Thereafter the State Government confirmed the order of detention 
on February 3, 1981 under Sec. 12 (1) of the National Security Act. 
The period of detention was stipulated as one year from the date of 
the order of detention. The order confirming the detention was 
communicated to the detenu on February 12, 1981 and he was also 
informed that the Advisory Board had opined that there was suffi-
cient cause for his detention. 
Smt. Shyamla Pappu, learned counsel for the detenu made a 
number of submissions. 
In the view that we are taking of one of 
the primary submissions, we do not think it necessary to consider 
the rest of the submissions. 
The primary submission that we have 
in mind is that the grounds of detention suffer from the vice of 
either vagueness or staleness. 
The first ground mentions that the 
detenu alongwith his friends, in the second week of November, 
1980, indulged in filthy abuse of Muslims, threatened their lives and 
performed "mar pit". Details of incidents were given to substan-
tiate the ground. As many as six incidents were mentioned and in 
everyone of them it was said that the detenu alongwith his associates 
had indulged in this or that violent action. 
No mention was made 
of the name of even a single associate. 
The argument was that the 
reference to 'as

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.