LexVASHISHT NARAIN KARWARIA versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A VASHISHT NARAIN KARWARIA v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. MARCH 28, 1990 B [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA c REDDY, JJ.] National Security Act, 1980: Section 3(3), 5A: Preventive Deten- tion-Subjective Satisfaction-Copies of police reports, alleging that detenu is a hardened criminal and habitual offender against whom many criminal cases are registered, placed before the detaining authority while only one criminal case was registered against the detenu-Held- Detention order is vitiated for taking into consideration extraneous material. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 22(5 )-Preventive Detention D -Detention order-Grounds and documents communicated to detenu -No details or particulars .furnished supporting allegations-Whether deprival of making an effective and purposeful representation. E The petitioner was detained nnder section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, under an order passed by the detaining authority after consideration of the documents placed before it by the sponsoring authority alleging that the detenu was a barlfened criminal and habitual offender against whom many cases were registered. The documents placed before the detaining authority were also served on the detenu along with the ground of detention. F The appellant filed a writ of Habeas Corpus in the High Court ,J challenging the validity of the detention which was dismissed. Hence this appeal. The appellant also filed a writ petition in this Court chal- lenging his detention. In this appeal it was contended on behalf of the --_ _ appellant that the detaining authority had acted on irrelevant and extraneous matters therefore the detention order is liable to be ... G quashed. On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the order of I detention was not invalid merely because some extraneous materials were placed before the detaining authority since the impugned order ill could be sustained on the material set out in the grounds of the deten- tion itself. H Allowing the appeal and disposing the Writ Petition, this Court, 2 l2 V.N. KARWARIA v. STATE OF U.P. 213 HELD: I. The averments made in the documents, the copies of which are furnished to the detenu along with grounds of detention une- quivocally and clearly spell out that the detenu is a hardened criminal, having a gang under his control often committing heinous crimes, that many cases are against the detenu are registered in various police sta- tions and that he is in the habit of committing offences. These aver- ments which are extraneous touching the character of the detenu though not referred to in the grounds of detention, might have influenced the mind of the detaining authority to some extent one way or other in reaching the subjective satisfaction to take the decision of directing the detention of detenu. Had these extraneous materials not been placed before the detaining authority, he might or might not have passed this order. Therefore the detention order is suffering from the vice of con- sideration of extraneous materials vitiating the validity of the order. The detention order is therefore quashed. 1217!1-EI Ram Krishna Paul v. The Government of West Bengal & Ors., [1972] I SCC 570; Snu. Pushpa v. Union of India..< Ors., [1980] Supp. SCC 391; Merugu Satyanarayana v. State of A.P. & Ors., [1982] 3 SCC 301 and Mehboob Khan Nawab Khan Pathan v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad & Anr., [1989] 3 SCC 568; followed. 2. Section SA provides that where there are two or more grounds covering various activities of the detenu, each activity is a separate ground by itself and if one of the grounds is vague, non•existent, not relevant, not connected or not proximately connected with such person or invalid for any other reason whatsoever, then that will not vitiate the order of detention. In the instant case the impugned order has not been made on two or more grounds covering various activities of the detenu, but has been passed on the sole ground relatable to a single incident. The conclusion arrived at is only on the basis that the extraneous mate- rials placed before the detaining authority might have influenced the mind of the detaining authority, but not on the ground that one of the grounds of the detention order has become invalid or inoperative for the reasons mentioned in Section S(A)(a). Therefore the submission that the factual material set out in the grounds of detention alone led to the passing o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.