SMT. PHULWARI JAGDAMBAPRASAD PATHAK versus SHRI R.H. MENDONCA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 686 · Decided: 26-07-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. PHULWARI JAGDAMBAPRASAD PATHAK 
v. 
SHRI R.H. MENDONCA AND ORS. 
JULY 26, 2000 
B 
[A.P. MISRA AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
Maharashtra prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, 
Bootleggers, Drug offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981: Sections 
C 2(a)(iv), 2(b-I) and 3. 
Preventive detention-Dangerous person-Detention order passed 
against-Validity of-Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority-Judicial 
review of detention order passed by Police Commissioner-Satisfaction of 
detaining authority that (i) Detenu was persistently engaged in criminal 
D activities (ii) Had unleashed terror in the locality (iii) victims and witnesses 
mortally afraid of detenu to make complaint and statements against him-
On assurance of anonymity statements made in camera-Such statements not 
assailed as untrue-Held in such circumstances conclusion arrived at by the 
detaining authority that detenu was a dangerous person was not vitiated-
. Detention order held valid 
E 
F 
. Preventive detention-Detention order-Statements of victims and 
witnesses recorded in camera-Held such statements can form the basis of 
detention order. 
T.he Commissioner of Police, Brihan, Mumbai passed an order under 
Section .3 (1). of. the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of 
Slunilords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 
.· detai~i~g th~ appi;llarit's son. The said detention order was passed with a view 
to preventing .. him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance 
of public order. In the grounds of detention the detaining authority recorded 
·a his satisfaction that .the detenu was. a dangerous person as he has unleashed 
a reign of terror and had become a perpetual danger to the society at large in 
the locality; he was persistently· engaged in criminal activities; witnesses and 
the victims were normally afraid of the detenu to complain and make 
statements against him openly but on assurance of anonymity they expressed 
their willingness to make their statements in camera. The detention order 
I-I 
686 
SMT. P.J. PATHAK v. R.H. MENDONCA 
687 
passed by the Commissioner of Police was confirmed by the State Government. A 
The said order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Bombay High Court 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that 
(1) the order of detention was vitiated as it was based on a single report 
registered by police; (2) on the materials placed on record the detenu could 
not be said to be a 'Dangerous person' within the meaning of Section 2(b-l) B 
and therefore could not be detained under the provisions of Section 3 (ii); and 
(3) statements of victims and witnesses recorded in camera cannot form the 
basis of a detention order under the Act 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The detention order under challenge does not suffer from 
any infirmity. For consideration of the question whether the appellant could 
c 
be said to be a dangerous person it is necessary to read the definition of the 
term in Section 2(b-l) and the provisions of Section 2(a) (iv) regarding the 
meaning of the term "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of D 
public order". Under the explanation under Section 2 (a) (iv) it is provided 
that public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely or shall be 
deemed likely to be affected adversely if any of the activities of any of the 
persons referred to in the clause directly or indirectly, is causing or calculated 
to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity, among the 
general public or any section thereof, or a grave or widespread danger to life E 
or public health. The deeming clause in the explanation widens the scope of 
the provision in Section 2(aXiv). It follows that if a person found to be repeatedly 
engaged in such activities as mentioned in Section 2(b-l) which affect adversely 
or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order he can be 
detained as a dangerous person in exercise of the power under Section 3 of F 
the Act. [694-8-E) 
2. Preventive detention measure is harsh, but it becomes necessary in 
larger interest of society. It is in the nature ofa precautionary measure taken 
for preservation of public order. The power is to be used with caution and 
circumspection. For the purpose of exercise of the power it is not necessary G 
to prove to the hilt that the person concerned had committed any of the offences 
as stated in th

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