LexSUNA ULLAH BUTT versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S70
SUNA ULLAQ BUTI'
v.
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS.
August 16. 1972
[J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DuA AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.]
Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act 1964, s, 12---0rder of
State Govt. confirming detenti{)n whether must sp~cify period of detention
-Lack of such ~pecificarion whether vWares detention.
The petitioner was detained under ss. 3t2) and 5 of the Jammu &
K::~hmir Preventive Detention Act 1964 by an order of the District
Magistrate. Aco.xding to the ground~ of detention supplied to the peti·
tioner he was in the service. of Pakistan Intelligence and had also recruited
other persons to supply military information to Pakistan Intelligence. After
the Advisory Board had given its opinion holding that the detention was
justilled, the State O.:>vernment confirmed the order of detention.
The
petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The
Court rejected the contentiOn of the petitioner that he was
already bl
custody when the order of detention was passed.
The Court also found
that the activities of the petitioqer were prejudicial to the security rll tht
9tate within the meanin& of -s. 3 (i) of the Act. On the question whether
tbe failure of the State Government to specify.. the period of detention in-
troduced an infirmity in the detention of the petitioner,
HELD : It is difficult to itifer from the language of s_ction 12 of the
Aot that the State Government while confi""n1ing the detention order lhould
arso ~peqfy the period of detention. All that the section requirea i• that.
if the Advisory Board has reported that there is, in its opinion, 10ufficient
c ·,113e for the detention of the person, the Government may confirm tbt
detention order. There is nothing in the section which enjoins upon the.
Government to specify the period of detention also while confirmin2 the
detention (,>rder. [873E-F]
Further it is not always practicable and feasible 1for the State Govern-
ment at the time of confinning the detention oroor to specify the perio.d
of detention. The continued detention of the detenu, subject to the maxi-
mum period prescribed by the Act, depends upon a variety of factors and
the State Government would have to m1ce into ac.ount all the circurnstanc.lfl
including fresh developnents and subsequent event~ in deciding whether
to keep the detenu in detention !for the maximum period or· to release him
earlier. It has accordingly been provided in sub-section (2) of section
13 of the Act that the State Government would have the power to revoke
or modify the detention order at any time earlier than the expiry of two
yea~ from the ~ate of detention. [873H·874AJ
Ujagar Singh v. The State {)j the P1mjabt fl952], S.C.R. 756. applied.
OR.IGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 195 of 1972.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforce-
ment of fundamental ri~hts.
Om Prakash, for the petitioner.
R. H. Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
•
S. U. BUTT. V. J. & K. STATE (Khanna, J.)
871
,.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Kbannllt _J •. This is. a petition through jail under article 32
of the Consutuuon for Jssumg a writ of habeas corpus by Sun<t
Ullah Butt, who ~as been ordlCr~ by the District Magistrate
poonch to be detaine<;f under ~xon 3 (2). read with section s of
the Jammu & Kashmir Preven_uve ~tention Act, 1964 (herein-
!! after r~ferred to as the A~t) .~tth a VIew to pr~euting him "from
acting JD any manner preJUdtclal to the security of the State"
The order .of detention was passed by the District Magi.itrate ·.
on October 24, 1971, In pursuance of the detention order the
petitioner was taken into cu~tody tho same day and was expl~ined
c lhe substance of the detention order. The petitioner was there-
after kept in Central Jail Jammu. The grounds of detention wer~
eommunicated to the petitioner on November 1, 1971 in accord-
ance with section 8 of the Act, which requires that such grounds
should be communicated to the detenu as soon as possible but-
JlCit later than 10 days from the date of detention. The order or
I) detention was approved by. the Chief Minister, who was incharge
of the Home Department., on November 12, 1971. The case of
lbc petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board on December
16, 1971. The Board communicated its opinion on February 19,
1972 that the detention of. the petitioner was justified. An order
~onfinning the detentiOn ordeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.