Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
SITALA PRASAD SHAW
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
DATE OF JUDGMENT15/10/1974
BENCH:
ACT:
Constitution of India, Art. 22(5)- Maintenance of Internal
Security Act, 1971 Period of detention-Habeas Corpus-Grounds
of detention refer to a solitary incident-Particulars
furnished stating "you have been acting" in a manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order-If justifies
inference that the detention order is based on undisclosed
material.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioner wag detained under the Maintenance of
Internal Security Act 1971. The ground of detention
referred to a solitary incident. The particulars furnished
to the petitioner however stated that he was detained on the
ground: "You have been acting", in a manner prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order. in a petition for habeas
corpus it was contended that since the language used showed
a culpable conduct over a long period of time, the detaining
authority had before it material showing that the petitioner
wag indulging in a criminal course of conduct for a long
period and as such material was not disclosed to the
petitioner, he had no opportunity to meet it resulting
thereby in the contravention of Art. 22(5) of the
Constitution- It was also contended that since State
Government approved a detention order hearing a date
different from the one shown in the order served on the
petitioner, State Government had before it some other order
of detention while approving the petitioner’s detention.
Confirming the order of detention,
HELD : In matters involving the liberty of the subject the
detaining authorities ought to exercise the greatest care in
the discharge of their functions. But that does not justify
an unrealistic dissection of detention orders. The counter
affidavit filed by the State shows that no other material
was taken into account. The--use of expression "you have
been acting", though unfortunate does not support the
submission that the detention order was founded on
undisclosed material, [426C-E]
(2)The order of approval contains a typographical error
which is clear from the fact that the number of detention
order is correctly given and in the order confirming the
detention order, after consultation with the Advisory Board
the correct date of the detention order is mentioned. [426F-
H]
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 118 of 1974.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
R. L. Kohli, for the petitioner.
Dilip Sinha and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, J.-The petitioner was detained by an order
dated August 23, 1973 passed by the District Magistrate,
Howrah, under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act,
1971. The order recites that the petitioner was detained
with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The particulars of the ground of detention refer to a
solitary incident dated March 18, 1973. It is alleged that
at about 2 p.m. on that date, the petitioner and his
associates being armed with swords, Ballams and Lathis
attacked a group of Bengalees at Rajnarayan Roy Choudhury
Ghat Road, Shibpur, Howrah causing severe injuries to them.
It is further stated that this conduct led to a reign of
terror
426
in the locality as a result of which the shops and the doors
of the read side houses were closed, people of the locality
fled away inpanic and the people were generally afraid of
coming out of their houses for fear of being assaulted.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
raised two points for our consideration in this petition fOr
the writ of habeas corpus. The particulars furnished to the
petitioner say that the petitioner was detained on the
ground: "you have been acting" in a manner prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order. The argument is that the
order is founded on a single incident and therefore, the use
of language showing that the culpable conduct on the part of
the petitioner extended over an appreciably long period of
time was wholly inappropriate. Inferentially; it is urged,
the detaining authority had material before it showing that
the petitioner was indulging in a criminal course of conduct
for a long periOd of time and as such material was not
disclosed to the petitioner, he bad no opportunity to meet
it, leading thereby to the contravention of Article 22(5) of
the Constitution. We are not impressed by this submission.
It is true that in matters involving the liberty of the
subject, the detaining authorities ought to exercise the
greatest care in the discharge of their functions. But that
dOes not justify an unrealistic dissection of detention
orders. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State
Govt. shows that no other material was taken into account by
the detaining authority while passing the order of
detention. Therefore, the use of the expression, "you have
been acting" though unfortunate does not support the
submission that the order of detention is founded on
undisclosed material. The petitioner was expressly apprised
that he had been acting in a manner prejudical to the
maintenance of public order "as evidenced by the
particulars" furnished to him. The particulars refer only
to a single incident.
The second ground of attack on the detention order is that
when the State Government approved the detention on August
30, 1973 it passed an order approving a detention order
dated "25-8-73". As the impugned order of detention is
dated August 23, 1973 it is urged that while approving the
detention of the petitioner, the State Government had before
it some other order of detention. There is no substance in
this contention. The order of approval contains but a
typographical error. This is clear from the order passed by
the State Govt. on November 8, 1973 confirming the order of
detention after obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board.
The order of confirmation refers to the order of detention
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
dated August 23, 1973. It must also be stated that as in
the order of confirmation so in the order of approval, an
express reference is made to the detention order bearing No.
1818-C. The order of detention passed against the
petitioner on August 23, 1973 bears that very number which
shows hat the reference to an order dated "25-8-73" in the
order of approval is a topographical mistake.
In the result, we confirm the order of detention and
discharge the rule in this petition.
P.H.P.
Petition dismissed.
427