LexSMT. BIMLA DEWAN versus LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.A B c D E (1 G H 42 SMt. lllMLA DEW AN v . • LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI July 30, 1982 [D.A. DESAI, BAl!ARUL ISLAM AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ .] National Security Act, 7980-Section 3(2)-Nature of acts prejudicial to maintenance of public order-Inclusion of past cases of acquittal in grounds of detention-Validity. The husband of the petitioner was detained by an order made under section 3(2) of the Act., The grounds of detention in support of the order rCfer- red fo a number of criminal cases involving the detenu in many of which he had been acquitted. The allegations in cases pending against the detenu were : that a Municipal Councillor had complained that when the staff of the Corpora- - tioo warited to apprehend some persons for purposes of prosecution, the detenu alOng with 70 others bad Pelted stones etc. resulting in damage to a building; that whisky was being served in his restaurant; that a loadCd revolver along with live cartridges had been rec_overed from his restaurant; that a J~dy had <::omplained that he had conspired for the murder of her husband; that a police officer had reported that two ladies of the family of a deceased person appi:ehended danger from him; and that ~ lady had complained that he had threatened her with dfre consequences. ll was stated in the grounds that these acts of the detenu showed that he was a desperate and dangerous character who was prone to act in a mannet prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore his detention under the provisions of the Act had been considered essential. The detenu had challenged his detention by a writ petition filed under Article 226 but the High Court which had heard the matter several mcnths before the fi~ing of the present petition under Article 32, had not passe~ any order there- on. It was alleged in the pe_tition tha.t the detenu was a social worker who was active in politics, that due to political rivalry be had been involved frotn time to time in a !lunlber of false cases, that he had succeeded in proving his innocence in most of them and that he h?d now been detaiced on account of political ven 4 detta. It was submitted that the alleged activities of the detenu, even if true, did not fall within the concept of threat to public order. Counsel for the petitioner contended that since the National Security Act did· not contain a provision like section SA of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Act; if one of the grounds was bad, the order of detention had to be ·quashed in its entirety. •• B!MLA DEWAN v. ~T. GOVERNOR (Varadarajan, J.) 4~ Allowing the petition, HELD : 1: None of the instances in which the. detenu had been found to be not guilfy and acQuittetl could have legitimately been taken into considera-. tion for detaining the detenu under section. 3(2) of the Natiorial Security Act. Since the detaining authority would naturally have been iDfluenced by these .' A grounds as well for coming to the conclusion that the detenu was required to be B detained under the provisions of the Act, the entire order of detention was unsustainable. [45 F-G: 46-B) 2. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb th'e even tempo of living in a , · Community or society which makes it Prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or public tranquillity. A mere al1egation in the complaint of the Municipal Councillor without anything more could not constitute a ground for detention C under the Act. There was no allegation in that instance that· the la.w enforce- ment authorities had any valid reason to believe th_at the allegations made in the complaint were true. There was also no a1legation that the building at which stones etc. were alleged to have been thrown was situate· in a public PJace and that the alleged act of the detenu and 70 other persons had caused apprehension in the minds of the residents of the locality in regard to maintenance of Public order. This instance could .not constitute a ground for detention Under the Act - D as. it had no potentiality to fnterfere with or affecf public order or public tran- quillity. The instances mentioD.ed in other cases pending against the detcnu could nOt in law amount to any interference with the maintenance of public order and Cotild not constitute grounds of detention under the Act.[47G; 46E-F; 47E·G;47C] Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, -AIR 1970 S.C. 1228, referred to. • ORIGINAL JURISDICT
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.