TARAPADA DE AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1951] 1 S.C.R. 212 · Decided: 25-01-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HARILAL JEKISUNDAS KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

J95J 
Stall of Bombay 
v. 
Atma Ram 
Sridhar Vaidya. 
1951 
Jan. 25. 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1951] 
allow this appeal and reverse 
the . decision of the 
Bombay High Court. 
Appeal allowed. 
Agent for the appellant : P. A. Mehta. 
Agent for the respondent: V. P. K. Nambiyar. 
TARAPADA DE AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
[SHRI HARILAL KANIA C.J., SAIYID FAzL Au, 
PATANJALI SASTRI, MuKHERJEA, DAs and 
CHANDRASEKHARA A1YAR JJ.l 
Constitution of lndia, 1950, Art. 22 (5)-Preventive detention-
Duty to contmunicate grounds of detention as soon as n1ay be-
Duty to gii1e earliest opportunity to make t-cpresentation-Grounds 
fttrnished 
after 15 
days-"Supplementary 
grounds
11 
furnished 
after 4 months-Ugality of detentt'on-Vague grounds and irrele-
vant grounds distinguished-Supply of grounds 
first and details 
later-Legality-Serving printed orders on 
same date on 
several 
persons-Bona fides of detention. 
A large 
number of persons 
were detained under the Bengal 
Criminal Law An1endrnent Act, 
1930~ The validity of this 
~.\ct 
was being c.hallenged in the High Court. Meanwhile, the Prcven· 
tive Detention Act of 1950 was passed on 26th February, 1950, 
and on the same date ·detention orders under this J\-:t \Vere 
served on them. 
The grounds of detention were served on them 
on the 14th of l\farch, and on the 16th of July the 
Government 
served on them "'Supplementary grounds" in continuation of the 
grounds already furnished on the 14th of March. A 
sec~nd 
set 
of 
grounds 
were communicated 
to the appellants 
on 
the 
22nd or 23rd of July. They applied to the High Court of Calcutta 
for writs of habeas corpus contending that the orders of detention 
were invalid on various ground~. The High Court rejected these 
applications and they appealed to the Supreme Court. 
Held per KANIA C.J., FAzI. 
ALI, 
MuKHERJEA and 
CHANDRA· 
SEKHARA 
AIYAR ·JJ.-(i) that-in the particular circumstances of 
the case, cSpccial!y in view of the fact that a large nnn1ber _of 
cases had to be dealt with on the passing of the Preventive 
Detention Act in February, 1950, it cannot be said that the 
grounds 
\Vt.re not communicated to the appellants "as soon as 
may be" within the meaning of Art. 22 (5); 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
213 
(ii) it cannot be held that the appellants were not given 
the "earliest opportunity" to make a representation, as required 
by Art. 22(5), merely because further details and facts were com-
municated to the appellants on the 16th July and 22nd 
July 
as 
these later communications did not contain any new or addition,! 
grounds 
(though 
they 
were 
described 
as 
"supplementary 
grounds") but only 
furnished details of the heads of grounds 
furnished on the 14th March; 
(iii) merely because a ground is 
vague it cannot be con-
sidered that it is no ground at all and therefore cannot 
be 
sufficient to 
'satisfy' the authorities; a 'vague' ground does 
not 
stand on the same footing as an irrelevant ground, 
which can 
have no connectioil at all with the satisfaction of the Government; 
(iv) the sufficiency of the 
grounds for 
the 
purposes 
of 
satisfaction . of the Government is 
not a matter for examination 
by the court; their suflidency to give the detained person the 
earliest opportunity to make a representation can be examined 
by the court, but only from that point of view. 
Held also, per DAs J.-The fact that a large number of fresh 
orders of detention were made overnight did not necessarily 
indicate bad fait.\ on the part of the authorities in the circum-
stances of these cases as the authorities had already applied their 
minds to the susp~cted activities .of each of the detenues and were 
satisfied that with a view to prevent them from doing some 
prejudicial :;ct, it was· necessary to detain them. 
The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya supra 
p. 167 followed. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: (Case 
No. 24 
of 1950). 
Appeal under Art. 132(1) of the Constitu-
tion of India, against the judgment and order of the 
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in Criminal 
Miscellaneous Case No. 361 of 1950. 
A. C. 
Gupta and 
Sudhansu 
Sekhar 
Mukherjee 
(Arun Kumar Dutta and S. N. Mukherjee, with them) 
for the appellants. 
M. C. 
Setalvad, 
Attorney-General, (B. Sen, with 
him) for the respondent. 
1951. Jan. 25. 
The Judgment of Kania C. J., 
Fazl 
Ali, Mukherjea and Chandrasekhara Aiyar 
J.J., 
was 
delivered by Kania C. J. Patanjali Sastri and Das JJ. 
delivered sepa

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