N.SENGODAN vs. SECRETARY TO GOVT.HOME CHENNAI .

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4815    OF 2013     (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.32704 OF 2010) N. SENGODAN        … APPELLANT VERUS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (PROHIBITION & EXCISE) DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI AND OTHERS            … RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted. JUDGMENT th 2. In   this   appeal   the   judgment   dated   16   August,   2010  passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in  W.A. No.1426 of 2010 is under challenge. By the impugned  th  judgment the Division Bench u­pheld the judgment dated 27 April,   2010   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   in   W.P.  No.1243   of   2003   and   dismissed   the   appeal,   affirming   the  finding recorded by the learned Single Judge.  The learned  Single Judge by his judgment dismissed the writ petition  Page 1 2 preferred by the appellant claiming the damages and praying  for   issuance   of   a   writ   of   mandamus   directing   the  respondents   to   pay   him   jointly   and   severally   a   sum   of 

confinement.    3. The relevant facts of the case are as follows: The appellant is an Ex­service man who served in the  Indian Army for a period of seven years; later he joined in  the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Services and retired from  st the service on 21  October, 1997 as Inspector of Police at  Attur Police Station, Salem District.   The 2nd respondent  by name V. Jegannathan, is a former Inspector General and  Commissioner of Police, Salem City and the 3rd respondent,  Ramasamy, is former Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police  JUDGMENT Station, Salem City. The 4th respondent, E.Gopi, is former  Inspector   of   Police,   Sooramangalam   Police   Station,   Salem  City   on   whose   complaint   a   case   in   Crime   No.11/98   was  registered   against   the   appellant   under   Section   3   of   the  Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and Section  505(1)(b) of  the Indian Penal Code. Page 2 3 4. According   to   the   appellant,   he   had   served   both   the  Indian Army and State Police Service with devotion and had  the   privilege   to   win   the   appreciation   of   his   superior 

College, Salem. His sons having completed their seven year  course in Medicine in Russia are doing their internship in  the Government Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai.  They are  all living together as a happy close knit family sharing  their   joys   and   sorrows   with   one   another.   Besides,   the  appellant has wide relations as well as friends who are all  having high esteem on him and his family. The version of  the   appellant   is   that   after   his   retirement,   he   had   the  opportunity to realize the difficulties encountered by each  JUDGMENT and every  member of the police force in Tamil Nadu and had  voiced the merits of forming an Association through which  demands   of   members   of   the   police   force   could   be   legally  made to set right the wrongs committed to them.   Further,  according   to   the   appellant,   he   neither   indulge   in   any  act/acts   leading   to   any   resentment   in   the   mind   of   any  personnel   in   the   police   service   nor   was   propagating  anything seditious.   Page 3 4 th While so, Tamil Daily Malai Murasu dated 18  December,  1997,   published   a   news   item   allegedly   authored   by   the  th appellant.   Based   on   the   said   news   item,   on   6   January, 

a case in Crime No.11/98 for offence under Section 3 of the  Police (Incitement to  Disaffection) Act, 1922 and Section  th 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code. Further, on 7  January,  1998 the appellant was arrested by the 3rd respondent and  remanded to judicial custody.  He was remanded in judicial  custody   by   the   Judicial   Magistrate   No.V,   Salem   in  connection with the above said case and lodged in Central  Prison, Salem for a period of two month. It is also alleged  that while the appellant was confined in Central Prison,  JUDGMENT Salem the Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem served on  him a detention order in C.M.P.No.04/Goonda/Salem City/98,  th nd dated   9   January,  1998   passed  by   2   respondent  the  then  Inspector General and Commissioner of Police, Salem City.  By the said order, the Commissioner of Police, Salem City  detained the appellant under “The Prevention of Dangerous  Activities   of   Bootleggers,   Drug­Offenders,   Forest  Offenders,   Goondas,   Immoral   Traffic   Offenders   and   Slum­ Page 4 5 grabbers   Act,   1982(hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   'Tamil  Nadu   Act   14   of   1982')”.     The   said   order   appears   to   be  nd passed by the 2  respondent based on the proposal submitted  by 3rd respondent.  th 5. On   9   February,   1998,   the   appellant   made   a   written  representation to the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu  and   sent   it   through   the   Superintendent,   Central   Prison,  Salem.  He raised several pleas in the representation.  The  Advisory   Board   established   under   the   provisions   of   the  Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, exercising its powers under the  provisions of sub­section (2) of Section 12 of the said Act  and addressing itself to all the facts and the connected  records,   having   found   nothing   recommended   for   the  revocation   of   detention   order   of   the   appellant.   The  JUDGMENT Governor   of   Tamil   Nadu,   in   view   of   the   recommendation,  revoked   the   order   of   detention   and   directed   that   the  appellant   be   released   forthwith   by   the   Government   Order  rd  Rt.No.636, Prohibition and Excise(XIV) Department, dated 3 March, 1998. 6. According to the appellant, the above detention order  was clamped by the respondents against him with a malafide  intention of detaining the appellant under the Tamil Nadu  Page 5 6 Act   14   of   1982   with   a   view   to   punish   him.   The   3rd  respondent,   Ramasamy,   the   then   Inspector   of   Police,  Fairlands Police Station had registered the said complaint 

the said crime and subsequently detained under the Tamil  Nadu Act 14 of 1982 for a period of two months till he was  released by the order of the Advisory Board revoking the  rd order of detention dated 3   March, 1998.   It is alleged  that   after   the   release   from   prison,   there   was   no   action  from the part of the 3rd respondent for a long time and no  charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Police  Station   Crime   No.11/98.   Ultimately,   a   final   report   was  filed which was received by the Judicial Magistrate No.V,  JUDGMENT Salem Court in the month of June, 2001 and the same has  been   accepted   by   the   learned   Magistrate   and   numbered   as  R.C.S.NO.19/2001 and the same was recorded.  The appellant  th received the copy of the same on 29  June, 2001.   7. Further, the case of the appellant is that since he was  subjected to harassment particularly by the 2nd respondent,  V. Jegannathan, the then Inspector General and Commissioner  of   Police,   Salem   City;   the   3rd   respondent,   the   then  Page 6 7 Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station by undergoing  imprisonment   as   a   remand   prisoner   and   as   a   detenu   in  Central   Prison,   Salem   on   the   basis   of   a   false   case 

both in body and mind. The appellant was also subjected to  mental cruelty and was also physically affected as a result  of   the   confinement   in   Central   Prison,   Salem.   The   family  members of the appellant have also suffered physically and  mentally   due   to   malafide   acts   of   the   2nd   and   4th  respondents.  The Ist respondent has been arrayed as one of  the respondents in view of the prayer for damages sought  for in the writ petition. th 8. The appellant served lawyer's notice dated 27   June,  JUDGMENT 2002 to all the respondents claiming damages in terms of  money for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/­.  The 2nd respondent, V.  Jegannathan, the then Inspector General of Police forwarded  a   reply   dated   Ist   July,   2002   to   the   lawyer's   notice  claiming immunity to his actions.  The 4th respondent, Gopi  th also   forwarded   a   reply   by   letter   dated   24   July,   2002  claiming innocent and denying the allegation that he had  Page 7 8 any   malafide   intention   to   foist   a   case   against   him.   No  reply has been filed by both the 1st and 3rd respondents.  9. The   2nd   respondent,   V.   Jegannathan   filed   a   counter­

Police Employees Association and that in that capacity he  had   been   visiting   several   Districts   and   insisting   the  members of the disciplined police force to join the said  Association   so   as   to   raise   their   voice   against   the  Government. It was also state d  that the appellant submitted  th a   representation   dated   9   February,   1998   in   which   he  tendered apology for his conduct and gave assurance that he  will   not   indulge   in   any   activity   in   future   and   on   that  basis prayed for revocation of detention order.   The 2nd  JUDGMENT respondent forwarded the same to the Chief Office, Chennai  with his report. The 3rd respondent was present before the  Advisory Board when the matter came up for review and he  presented a copy of the representation of the appellant.  Only on the basis of the undertaking of the appellant that  he  will not indulge in  any such activity  in future, the  Advisory Board ordered the release of the appellant.   It  was alleged that the appellant had willfully suppressed the  Page 8 9 material   fact   that   he   tendered   an   apology   and   gave   in  writing an undertaking that he will not indulge in any such  activity in future.  

Tamil   Nadu   in   G.O.Rt.No.195,   Prohibition   and   Excise  th Department   dated   20   January,   1998.   Before   issuing   the  detention   order   on   the   basis   of   the   report   of   the   3rd  respondent,   the   concerned   legal   advisor   was   consulted   by  the 2nd respondent and only after he gave his opinion that  the   activities   of   the   appellant   would   attract   the  provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 the detention  order   was   issued.     Therefore,   according   to   the   2nd  respondent,   he   issued   the   detention   order   in   a   bonafide  JUDGMENT manner   and   in   exercise   of   power   vested   with   him   in   his  nd official capacity.  The 2  respondent further pleaded that  he   had   no   malafide   intention   and   only   on   the   basis   of  materials placed before him and being satisfied that it is  just and essential to detain the appellant under the Tamil  Nadu   Act   14   of   1982   he   issued   the   detention   order   in   a  bonafide manner.   Page 9 10 11. The Ist respondent, the Secretary to the Government,  Home (Prohibition & Excise) Department, Government of Tamil  Nadu filed a separate affidavit in the writ petition. He 

Association and that in that capacity he had been visiting  several   Districts   and   insisting   the   members   of   the  disciplined police force to join the said Association so as  to raise their voice against the Government.  It is stated  that before issuing the detention order on the basis of the  report   of   the   3rd   respondent,   the   legal   advisor   was  consulted by the 2nd respondent and only after getting his  opinion; the detention order was issued by G.O.Rt.No.195,  th Prohibition & Excise Department, dated 20   January, 1998.  JUDGMENT The   Ist   respondent   has   taken   a   similar   plea   that   the  appellant has wilfully suppressed the material fact that he  gave an undertaking in writing that he will not indulge in  any such activity in future and that the respondents never  had any malafide intention and  only on  the basis of the  materials placed and being satisfied that it is just and  essential to detain the appellant under the Tamil Nadu Act  14 of 1982, the respondents issued the detention order in a  Page 10 11 bonafide   manner   in   their   official   capacity.   The   Ist  respondent   has   also   taken   similar   plea   that   the   2nd  respondent issued the detention order in a bonafide manner 

unsustainable.  th 12. Learned Single Judge by the judgment dated 27   April,  2010   dismissed   the   writ   petition   on   the   ground   that   the  appellant has failed to establish malafide intention on the  part of the respondents in registering a criminal case and  detaining him under Tamil Nadu  Act 14 of  1982.  The said  judgment was upheld by the Division Bench by the impugned  th judgment dated 16  August, 2010. 13. The   appellant   has   highlighted   the   relevant   facts   as  noticed above and the learned counsel placed reliance on  JUDGMENT the First Information Report, the communication made by the  parties, order of detention, etc.  It was submitted by the  learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   that   the   burden   was  wrongly   placed   on   the   detenu   particularly   when   no  explanation was given by the respondents as to why action  was taken for detention of the appellant. It was further  contented   that   the   High   Court   erred   in   holding   that   the  appellant was involved in habitual activities prejudicial  Page 11 12 to   the   interest   of   the   public   order   by   touring   various  Districts and soliciting the police officials to join the  association,   though   there   was   no   material   available   on 

against the appellant it was not open for the High Court to  hold   that   the   appellant   toured   various   Districts   to  mobilize public opinion.   14. Learned counsel for the Ist respondent strenuously took  pain to define malafide intention to suggest that nothing  malafide either on facts or in law has been proved by the  appellant. 15. The   only   question   requires   for   our   consideration   is  whether   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   the  JUDGMENT appellant is entitled for any damage for having detained  for around two months under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu  Act 14 of 1982 in the Crime No.11/98. 16. From the record we find that much after his retirement  th  a press statement was released by the appellant on     8 December, 1997 in a Tamil Newspaper "Malai Murasu", which  reads as follows:   Page 12 13 “PRESS STATEMENT ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

For example on 30.11.97 in the incident  that took place in Kovai one Constable Thiru  Selvaraj was attacked and died and even this  incident could not be brought to the notice  of the Government by police constables for  taking proper action in this regard and on  their   behalves,   their   respective   wives   are  forced to fight for their rights by coming  to the street in bringing this to the notice  of the Government. Thus in order to avoid this situation,  already a request was made to the Government  by the officials in the Police Department to  form   an   Association/Union   and   to   act  accordingly.   As   a   reminder,   again   such  request   is   made   for   forming   of   an  association   for   the   purpose   of   seeking  proper protection to the constables and to  over come their difficulties and to explain  their true state of affairs. JUDGMENT Therefore, the Hon’ble Doctor Kalaignar  who   is   treating   the   people   belonging   to  various community, as equal, is requested to  accord sanction to form an association for  the above said purposes.   Sd/.        S. Sengodan           State Organizer Dated: 08/12/1997    Tamil Nadu Police  Department employees” Page 13 14 17. Based   on   the   aforesaid   press   statement   the   First  th Information Report was lodged by the 4  respondent, E.Gopi, 

an accused. A case (Crime No.11/98) was registered in the  Fairlands   Police   Station,   Salem   for   the   offence   under  Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act,  1922 and Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC, relevant portion of  which reads as under: “IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.5,  SALEM CRIME NO: 11/98, FAIRLANDS POLICE STATION, FIRST INFOMRATION REPORT. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx JUDGMENT Humbly Submitted: Today   i.e.   on   6.1.98   at   about   8.00   p.m.  night while I being the Inspector of Police  was at the station, the Inspector of Police,  Sooramangalam   Police   Station,   Salem   City  Thiru   Gopi   was   present   at   the   station   and  gave   a   report   along   with   a   paper   News  cutting dated 8.12.97 published in the news  paper called ‘Malai Murasu at page 2 which  reads as follows:­ From: E.Gopi, Inspector of Police,  Sooramangalam P.S. Page 14 15 Salem City. To The Inspector of Police,  Fairlands Police Station, Salem City.

Sir, The   Police   Department   which   is   giving  protection to the General public is forced  to seek protection for themselves as we have  no solution as to how to stress our demands  to the Government.  In   the   incident   that   took   place   in  Kovai   one   Constable   Selvaraj   was   attacked  and died and even this incident could not be  brought to the notice of the Government by  police   constables   for   taking   proper   action  in this regard and on their behalves, their  respective   wives   are   forced   to   fight   for  justice by coming to the street in bringing  this to the notice of the Government. JUDGMENT Thus in order to avoid this situation,  already a request was made to the Government  by   the   Police   Department   to   form   an  Association/Union and to act accordingly.  I  request you once again as a reminder to form  an   Association   for   the   purpose   of   seeking  proper protection to the constables and to  over come their difficulties and to explain  their true state of affairs. Page 15 16

Hence   I   request   you   to   take   suitable  action against Tr.N. Sengodan, Inspector of  Police (Retd.) in this regards. Yours faithfully,                Sd. E.Gopi Inspector, Dt.6.1.98. On the basis of the above said report,  received by me, I registered a case in Crime  No.11/98   on   the   file   of   Fairlands   Police  Station for the offence under Section 3 of  the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act,  1922 and Section 505 (1)(b) IPC and sent the  copies   of   the   First   Information   Report   to  the concerned officials and taken the case  on file for investigation. JUDGMENT Sd. Inspector of Police       Fairlands 6.1.98” In view of the aforesaid criminal case the appellant  th was   arrested   on   the   same   day,   6   January,   1998   and   was  taken in custody.  18. The   very   same   press   note   was   used   for   issuance   of  th nd  detention   order   dated   9   January,   1998   by   the   2 Page 16 17 respondent, V. Jegannathan, the then Inspector General and  Commissioner   of   Police,   Salem   City   for   detaining   the  appellant under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, which reads as  follows:

JUDGMENT Whereas the aforesaid individual is  found   indulging   in   an   activity  prejudicial to the maintenance of Public  Order and details of which are set out in  detail in the grounds of detention.  Now,   therefore,   in   exercise   of   the  powers conferred by Sub –section (2) of  Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of  Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug  Offenders,   Forest   Offenders,   Goondas,  Immoral   Traffic   Offenders   and  Page 17 18

Given under my hand and seal of this  th office, this the 9  day of January 1998. Sd/­ INSPECTOR GENERAL AND  COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SALEM CITY. To Thiru N. Sengoan, Male, aged 59 years, Son of late Nanjappa Gounder, No.3/90, P&T Colony (East) New Fairlands, Salem­16. Fairlands P.S. Limits, Salem City. (Now in Central Prison, Salem) JUDGMENT Through the Superintendent, Central  Prison, Salem.” 19. The   appellant   having   taken   in   Central   Prison   made   a  nd representation before the 2   respondent, Inspector General  and Commissioner of Police, Salem City by stating that he  has no criminal antecedents.  It was further stated that he  was in the 'Police TASK FORCE' under the State which was  formed to nab the notorious sandal wood smuggler Veerappan  Page 18 19 and his associates. As a Police officer his service record  remained extremely good and he had been rewarded a number  of times and that meritorious service entry has been made 

constitute an offence nor will it result in the disruption  of public order. He requested the Commissioner of Police,  Salem City to revoke  the order of detention and gave  an  undertaking that he will not indulge in any activity which  is per se illegal and unlawful.   The relevant portion of  th the   representation   dated   9   February,   1998   reads   as  follows:             “ I   most   respectfully   submit   as  hereunder:         On 7­1­1998 the Inspector of Police,  Fairlands,   Salen   City   arrested   me   in   my  residence and took me to the Police Station.  The grounds of arrest he informed is that a  case has been registered at his station in  Crime   No.11   of   1998   for   offences   under  Section   3   of   the   Police   (Incitement   to  Disaffection)   Act,   1922   and   under   Section  505(1)(b)   IPC   and   that   the   same   was   under  investigation.   I   was   further   informed   that  the   said   case   has   been   registered   on  6.1.1998 upon a complaint said to have been  given   by   Thiru.Gopi,   Inspector   of   Police,  Sooramangalam, Salem City to the effect that  I was attempting to form an Association to  fight for and secure certain rights to the  serving   Police   personnel   in   the   State   of  Tamil Nadu and thereby incidentally inciting  JUDGMENT Page 19 20 the police personnel.  Which is in a manner  prejudicial to the maintenance of the public  order on being produced before the Judicial  Magistrate,   I   was   remanded   to   judicial  custody   and   lodged   in   the   Central   Prison,  Salem.

       I submit that I had never been cited  much   less   convicted   for   any   offence  previously,   I   have   retired   as   a   honest  Police Officer I have never come to adverse  notice even during my service, I have been  an ex­serviceman while in service while many  officers were not willing to join the ‘TASK  FORCE’ that was formed to nab the notorious  sandal wood smuggler Veerappan I offered to  join and indeed served in the “TASK FORCE".            I humbly submit that my record of  service as a Police Official was extremely  good.   I   have   won   several   rewards   and  meritorious service entries. JUDGMENT      I submit that even if the acts alleged  to have indulged in are assumed to be true  cannot   be   said   they   will   result   in   the  disruption of the Public Order it is nowhere  said   that   as   a   result   of   my   acts   at   any  point of time or at any place a public order  was disrupted.     I submit that I undertake not to indulge  in   any   activities   which   is   per   se   illegal  and unlawful. I submit that I have not taken  any part in the strike or in the connected  activities.     So   I   request   that   I   am   a  Page 20 21 innocent and I may be released at an early  date.  I assure you that I will not take any  part in future in this connection.       I therefore request the Commissioner of  Police   to   be   pleased   to   consider   this  Memorial and revoke the order of detention. Yours sincerely, Sd/­ DATED: 9­2­1998 (N. SENGODAN)” 20. The   detention   order   was   placed   before   the   Advisory  Board under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.  After taking into consideration the representation and the  connected   records   the   Advisory   Board   expressed   its  unanimous opinion that there was no sufficient cause for  detention   of   the   appellant,   N.   Sengodan.   In   view   of   the  non­approval of the detention order by the Advisory Board  JUDGMENT and its finding, the Government of Tamil Nadu revoked the  th detention   order   dated   9   January,   1998   by   G.O.Rt.No.636  rd dated 3  March, 1998 issued from Prohibition & Excise (XIV)  rd Department, Chennai.  The revocation order dated 3  March,  1998 reads as follows: "GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT Page 21 22

G.O.Rt.No.66 Dated:3­3­98. Read:­ 1.  From the Commissioner of Police, Salem City,   Lr.CMP   No.4/Goonda/SLM/C/98, Dt:12.1.1998. 2. G.O. Rt.No.195/P&E Department, dated:20­1­98. 3. From the Chairman, Advisory Board, report dt:   19­2­98. ­­­ ORDER: The grounds of detention etc., of the  detenu Thiru.N. Sengodan, s/o Thiru.Nanjappa  Gounder,   No.3/90,   P&T   Colony   (East)   New  Fairlands,   Salem­16,   Fairlands   Police  Station   Limits,   Salem   City,   were   placed  before the Advisory Board under Section 10  of the Prevention of Dangerous Activities of  Bootleggers,   Drug­Offenders,   Forest  Offenders,   Goondas,   Immoral   Traffic  Offenders and Slum­grabbers Act 1982 (Tamil  Nadu Act 14/1982). The Advisory Board after  perusing the grounds of detention the report  of   the   detaining   authority   to   the  Government,   the   written   representation   of  the   detenu   dated:9­2­98   and   the   connected  records and also the oral representation of  the   detenu   before   the   Advisory   Board   has  expressed   its   unanimous   opinion   that   there  is no sufficient cause for the detention of  Thiru.N. Sengodan.  Therefore, in accordance  with   the   Provisions   of   sub­section   (2)   of  Section   12   of   the   aforesaid   Act,   the  JUDGMENT Page 22 23

R. POORNALINGAM,  SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.” 21. In   criminal   case   Crime   No.11/98   after   investigation,  the   respondents   failed   to   get   any   ingredients   to   submit  rd  chargesheet   against   the   appellant,   N.   Sengodan.   The   3 respondent,     M.   Ramasamy,   the   then   Inspector   of   Police,  Fairlands   Police   Station,   who   was   dealing   with   the   said  criminal   case   after   consulting   the   Assistant   Prosecutor,  Murugesan and going through the CD file opined that there  was no necessary ingredients available to curb and hook­up  JUDGMENT the   appellant,   N.Sengodan   under   Section   3   of   the   Police  (Incitement to  Disaffection) Act, 1922 and Section 505(1) (b)   of   the   IPC   and   therefore,   advised   to   drop   further  action. In view of the aforesaid opinion and materials on  record   Ramasamy,   Inspector   of   Police,   Fairlands   Police  Station submitted his final report dropping the case which  reads as follows: Page 23 24 “In   the   Court   of   the   Judicial   Magistrate   No.V  Salem   RCs.No.19/2001,   FINAL   REPORT   IN   FAIRLANDS  P.S. Cr.No.11/98 U/s. 3 of the Police (Incitement  to   Disaffection)Act,   1922   and   Section   505(1)(b)  IPC.

The   said   retired   Inspector   of   Police   was  arrested on 6­01­98at his residence and produced  before   the   court   of   JM.5   on   7.1.98.   He   was  remanded   in   Judicial   custody.     Finally,   he   was  detained under Section 14 of Goondas Act by the  Commissioner   of   Police,   Salem   vide   CMP  No.04/Goondas/Salem   City/98,   dated:2.1.98.   But  the   Advisory   Board   revoked   the   said   detention  order   vide   G.O.Rt.No.636   dated:3.3.98   by   virtue  of which he was released. JUDGMENT Then   I   consulted   the   Assistant   Prosecutor  Tr.Murugesan,   He   went   through   the   CD   file   and  offered   his   opinion   that   the   necessary  ingredients to hook­up the said Tr.Sengodan under  the said sections of law were lacking and in one   and advised to drop further action. Accordignly, further action in this case is  hereby dropped. Sd/­ Page 24 25 Ramasamy, Inspector of  Police, FairlandsP.S.”

th rd for a period from 6  January, 1998 to 3  March, 1998.  22. From the counter­affidavit we find that  M. Subbannan,  Assistant   Commissioner   of   Police,   Western   Range,   Salem  th City, Salem by letter dated 7   January, 1998 informed the  Inspector General and Commissioner of Police, Salem City,  Salem   that   the   Additional   Director   of   Prosecution,   I/C  Salem   on   perusal   of   the   records   of   the   Crime   No.11/98  opined that the accused (appellant herein) is a fit person  to be detained as 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of  JUDGMENT 1982.   He   thereby   requested   that   the   action   may   be   taken  against the appellant to detain him as 'Goonda' under the  th  Tamil   Nadu   Act   14   of   1982.   The   said   letter   dated   7 January, 1998 reads as follows:  “D.THIRU.NAVUKKARASU, Dated: 7­01­1998.    ASST. DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION,   DHARAMPURI i/c SALEM. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Page 25 26

3. While   he   was   in   service,   Tr.Sengodan,  claimed to be the President of South Arcot Distt.  Police   Association   and   after   retirement   from  service as Inspector of Police on 31.10.1997, he  has reportedly floated a self styled Union, viz.,  Tamil   Nadu   Government   Police   Officials   Union   and he claims to have applied for recognition of  his Union by the Government. 4. Considering   his   past   history   and   present  activities inciting the police personnel to form  an   Association   of   their   own   to   fight   for   their  rights, I am of the opinion that the prevailing  penal law is of no avail to curb his activities  and with a view to prevent him from acting in any   manner   prejudicial   to   the   maintenance   of   public  order,   it   is   necessary   to   make   an   order   of  detention and the accused is a fit person to be  detained as GOONDA under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982. JUDGMENT Asst.Director of Prosecution, Dharampuri i/c Salem.” th rd  23. On   the   same   date,   i.e.,   7   January,   1998,   3 respondent, Mr. M. Ramasamy, Inspector of Police, Fairlands  Police   Station,   Salem   City   by   an   affidavit   before   the  Inspector   General   and   Commissioner   of   Police,   Salem   City  requested to issue an order of detention under Section 3(2)  Page 26 27 rd  of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. In the said letter 3 respondent, M. Ramasamy shown himself as petitioner and the  appellant­accused as the respondent. In the said affidavit 

and is known for his pro­Police Association activities even  while he was in Government service and claimed himself to  be the President of South Arcot District Police Association  and, therefore, requested to detain him as he would indulge  in   such   activities   continuously   unless   he   was   detained  th  under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The affidavit dated 7 rd January, 1998 filed by the 3  respondent, Mr. M. Ramasamy,  the   then   Inspector   of   Police,   Fairlands   Police   Station,  Salem City reads as follows: JUDGMENT “BEFORE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER OF  POLICE, SALEM CITY. M. Ramasamy,  ) Inspector of Police, ) PETITIONER Fairlands P.S., ) Salem City. ) – Versus – Thiru N. Sengodan, ) male, aged 59 years, ) son of late Nanjappa Gounder, ) RESPONDENT Page 27 28 3/90, P&T Colony (East) ) New Fairlands, Salem­16,  ) Fairlands P.S. Limits, Salem City. AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THIRU M. RAMASAMY, INSPECTOR  OF   POLICE,   FAIRLANDS   P.S.,   BEFORE   THE  COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SALEM CITY, PRAYING FOR  AN ORDER OF DETENTION UNDER SECTION 3(2) OF THE  TAMIL NADU ACT 14/1982. I, M. Ramasamy, aged 43 years, son of Thiru  Maruthaiah, Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police  Station,   Salem   City,   do   hereby   solemnly   affirm  and sincerely state as follows:­ (1)   I   submit   that   I   am   the   Inspector   of  Police, Fairlands P.S., having jurisdiction over  Fairlands P.S. Limits. I have been entrusted with  the   work   of   enforcement   of   law   and   order,  detention of crime, prohibition and other related  offences,   prosecution   of   criminals   who   commit  offences   in   violation   of   the   provisions   which  adversely affect the public order. JUDGMENT (2)  During the course of my above mentioned  duties, I came across the activities of Thiru N.  Sengodan,   male,   a   retired   Inspector   of   Police,  aged   59   years,   son   of   late   Nanjappa   Gounder,  residing   at   No.3/90   P&T   Colony   (East),   New  Fairlands, Salem­16, Fairlands P.S. Limits, Salem  City.  Thiru Sengodan who retired from service on  31.10.97 is known for his pro­Police Association  activities   even   while   he   was   in   Government  service and claimed to be the President of South  Arcot   District   Police   Association.     He   is   the  self   styled   leader   of   Tamil   Nadu   Government  Police Officials Union now. (3)     Further, on 08.12.97, he has come to  adverse notice by issuing a press statement that  appeared   in   Malai   Murasu,   inciting   the   police  Page 28 29

(4)       I also submit that Thiru N.Sengodan  was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.V,  Salem   on   07.01.1998   and   he   was   remanded   to  judicial   custody   at   Central   Prison,   Salem   as  ordered. Now, Thiru N. Sengodan, is in remand at  Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner.  (5)       The   marks   of   identification   of   the  accused   are   properly   entered   in   the   P.S.R.   as  below: (1) Two old wound scars on the forehead  above the left eye. (2) Two old would scars on the forehead  above the left eye. (3) A block mole below the left eye.  JUDGMENT The extract of the P.S.R.is enclosed. (6) Hence,   there   is   every   likelihood   that  Thiru N. Sengodan would indulge in such activity  continuously   unless   he   is   detained   under   Tamil  Nadu Act 14 of 1982.  I, therefore, request that necessary action  may kindly be taken against him, under Tamil Nadu  Act   14/1982,   if   deemed   fit,   by   the   Detaining  Authority. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FAIRLANDS POLICE STATION, SALEM CITY. th Solemnly affirmed at Salem, this 7  day of  January 1998 and signed his name in my presence.” Page 29 30 24. The same ground was shown in the order of detention  th vide proceedings dated 9   January, 1998 of the Inspector  General and Commissioner of Police, Salem City, which reads 

JUDGMENT ­ ­ ­ ORDER: Thiru N. Sengodan, male, aged 59 years,  son of late Nanjappa gounder and a retired  Inspector of Police, residing at No.3/90, P&T  Colony   (East),   New   Fairlands,   Salem­16,  Fairlands P.S. Limits; Salem City; has come  to adverse notice as detailed below: (i)Thiru N. Sengodan, who retired as Inspector of  Police   on   31­10­1997   from   Attur   Town   Police  Station in Salem District, is known for his pro­ Police Association activities. Page 30 31 (ii)Even while he was in Government service, he  had indulged in such Police Association activities  and   claimed   himself   as   the   President   of   South  Arcot District Police Association.

2) A detention order under section 3(2) of  the   Tamil   Nadu   Prevention   of   Dangerous  Activities   of   Bootleggers,   Drug   Offenders,  Forest   Offenders,   Goondas,   Immoral   Traffic  Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil  Nadu Act 14/1982) has been made against Thiru  N. Sengodan, male, aged 59 years, son of late  Nanjappa   gounder,   residing   at   No.3/90,   P&T  Colony   (East),   New   Fairlands,   Salem­16,  Fairlands Police Station limits, Salem City  in   C.M.P.No.04/Goonda/Salem   City/98,   dated  09­01­1998. 3) The grounds on which detention has been  made are as follows:­ On 08­12­1997, Thiru N.Sengodan,   male,  aged 59 years, son of late Nanjappa gounder,  residing at No.3/90, P&T Colony (East), New  Fairlands,   Salem­16,   Fairlands   P.S.   limits,  Salem City, has issued a press statement that  appeared in “Malai Murasu”, Salem edition, in  which, he has, in the capacity of Organiser,  Tamil Nadu Government Police Officials Union,  reiterated his earlier demand placed before  the Government on formation of an Association  for police personnel.  Further, he has urged  formation of such an Association to protect  the   interests   of   police   personnel   and   to  ventilate their grievances. JUDGMENT Further,   after   issuing   the   above   press  statement, Thiru N. Sengodan has toured the  districts   of   Coimbatore,   Tiruchenirappalli,  Pudukottai and Chennai City and incited the  service police personnel over formation of an  Page 31 32

The   Inspector   of   Police,   Fairlands  Police Station recorded the said complaint in  the   G.D.   at   2000   hours   on   06.01.98   and  registered a case in Cr.No. 11/98, u/s 3 of  the Police (Incitement to disaffection) Act,  1922     and   Section   505(1)   (b)   IPC,   against  Thiru N. Sengodan, for commission of offences  in inciting the police personnel to form an  Association. The Inspector of Police, Fairlands P.S.  took up investigation of the case, and he,  alongwith   his   party   proceeded   to   the  residence of Thiru N. Sengodan, No.3/90, P&T  Colony (East), New Fairlands, Salem­16, and  arrested him at 2200 hours, on 06.01.98.  On  being   interrogated,   Thiru   N.   Sengodan,  admitted of having given the press statement  to “Malai Murasu” on 08.12.97 on the need for  the   formation   of   an   Association   for   Police  personnel.  He was then brought to Fairlands  Police Station at 2230 hours on 06.01.98 and  was handed over to the station sentry Gr. 1  PC.     2340   Selvakumar   for   custody.     Later,  Thiru   N.   Sengodan   was   produced   before   the  Judicial Magistrate No.5, Salem at 0100 hours  on   07.01.98   and   was   remanded   to   judicial  custody for 15 days upto 20.01.98, at Central  JUDGMENT Page 32 33 Prison,   Salem.     The   case   is   under  investigation.

5)  xxxxxxx 6) xxxxxxx 7) xxxxxxx Inspector General and Commissioner of Police, Salem City.”  th On the same date, i.e., 9  January, 1998 the detention  order was issued by the Inspector General and Commissioner  of Police, Salem City. 25. From   the   different   communications,   report,   FIR   and  orders   as   quoted   above,   we   find   that   the   following  allegations were levelled against the appellant: JUDGMENT i) the   appellant,   retired   Inspector   of   Police  by   press   statement   published   in   the   second  th edition of “ Malai Murasu”dated 8  December, 1997  incited   the   police   personnel   of   Tamil   Nadu   to  form   an   Association   to   fight   for   their   likely  rights; ii) the statement aforesaid was likely to incite  the   police   personnel   who   read   it   to   form   an  Association to fight for their rights; iii) the aforesaid incitement and press note made  out the offences, punishable under Section 3 of  the   Police   (Incitement   to   Disafffection)   Act,  1922 and Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC; Page 33 34 iv) the   records   reveal   that   the   activities   of  the   accused­appellant,   in   having   instigated   the  police personnel by issue of press statement, to  form an association of their own, are prejudicial  to the maintenance of the public order;

October, 1997, he had reportedly floated a self­ styled Union, viz., Tamil Nadu Government Police  Officials   Union   and   he   claimed   to   have   applied  for recognition of his Union by the Government;  and vi) his past history and present activities in  inciting   the   police   personnel   to   form   an  Association   of   their   own   to   fight   for   their  rights and such activities are prejudicial to the  maintenance of the police order which cannot be  curtailed by prevailing penal law and, therefore,  it   was   necessary   to   declare   him   "Goonda"   for  detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.” 26. Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection)  Act,   1922   stipulates   penalty   for   causing   disaffection  JUDGMENT towards the State, etc. reads as follows: " Section   3.   Penalty   for   causing  disaffection,   etc.   Whoever   intentionally   causes  or attempts to cause, or does any act which he  knows is likely to cause disaffection towards the  Government   established   by   law   in   India   amongst  the   members   of   a   Police   Force,   or   induces   or  attempts   to   induce,   or   does   any   act   which   he  knows is likely to induce any member of a police   force   to   withhold   his   service   or   to   commit   a  breach   of   discipline   shall   be   punished   with  imprisonment   which   may   extend   to   six   months   or  with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees,  or with both.” Page 34 35 27. Thus the question that arises is whether the intention  of   the   appellant   (a   retried   police   officer)   to   form  Association of Police force amounts to causing disaffection 

Section 3 of Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922.  To decide such issue one may refer one of the Central Acts  enacted   by   the   Parliament   known   as   “The   Police­Forces  (Restriction   of   Rights)   Act,   1966   (Act   33   of   1966)  (hereinafter referred to as the “1966 Act") to provide for  the restriction of certain rights conferred by Part III of  the Constitution in their application to the members of the  Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as to  ensure   the   proper   discharge   of   their   duties   and   the  maintenance of discipline among them. Section 3 of the 1966  JUDGMENT Act restricts right to form association, freedom of speech,  etc., which reads as follows: “ Section 3. Restrictions respecting right to form  association, freedom of speech, etc.— (1)  No member of a police force shall, without  the express sanction of the Central Government or  of the prescribed authority,­ (a) be a member of, or be associated in any  way with, any trade union, labor union,  political association or with any class  of   trade   unions,   labor   unions   or  political associations; or Page 35 36 (b)  be a member of, or be associated in any 

Explanation.­   If   any   question   arises   as   to  whether any society, institution, association or  organization is of a purely social, recreational  or religious nature under clause (b) of this sub­ section, the decision of the Central Government,  thereon, shall be final. (2) No member of a police­force shall  participate in, or address, any meeting or take  part in any demonstration organized by any body  of persons for any political purposes or for such  other purposes as may be prescribed.” 28. Under Section 4 of the 1966 Act penalty is prescribed  JUDGMENT as:   if   any   police   officer   violates   the   said   provisions,  shall, without prejudice to any other action that may be  taken against him, be punishable with imprisonment for a  term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may  extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. 29. It   is   apparent   from   Section   3   of   the   Act   1966   that  there is no specific ban to form association but there is a  restriction to form association. A Police personnel can be  Page 36 37 a   member   of,   or   can   be   associated   in   any   way   with,   any  trade   union,   labour   union,   political   association   or   with  any   class   of   trade   unions,   labour   unions   or   political 

the penalty under Section 3 for causing disaffection, it is  to be proved that the person concerned intentionally caused  or attempted to cause or done any act which is likely to be  disaffection towards the Government established by law in  this   country   among   the   members   of   the   Police   force   or  induces   or   attempts   to   induce   or   does   any   act   which   he  knows likely to induce any member of the Police force to  withhold his service or committed breach of discipline.  th 30. From the press statement dated 8  December, 1997 it is  JUDGMENT apparent that no  incitement has been made by the appellant  against the State Government nor the Police force has been  th  instigated.   The   appellant   cited   past   incident   of   30 November, 1997 in which one Selvaraj a Police constable was  attacked   and   killed   which   could   not   be   brought   to   the  notice of the Government by Police constables for taking  proper   action   and   their   wives   were   forced   to   fight   for  their rights by coming to the street in bringing this to  Page 37 38 the notice of the Government. A reminder was given to the  Chief Minister to allow to form Association or Union for  the   purpose   of   seeking   proper   protection   to   the   Police 

th following part of the press note dated 8  December, 1997: “For   example   on   30.11.97   in   the   incident  that took place in Kovai one Constable Thiru  Selvaraj was attacked and died and even this  incident could not be brought to the notice  of the Government by police constables for  taking proper action in this regard and on  their   behalves,   their   respective   wives   are  forced to fight for their rights by coming  to the street in bringing this to the notice  of the Government. Thus in order to avoid this situation,  already a request was made to the Government  by the officials in the Police Department to  form   an   Association/Union   and   to   act  accordingly.   As   a   reminder,   again   such  request   is   made   for   forming   of   an  association   for   the   purpose   of   seeking  proper protection to the constables and to  overcome   their   difficulties   and   to   explain  their true state of affairs. JUDGMENT Therefore, the Hon’ble Doctor Kalaignar  who   is   treating   the   people   belonging   to  various community, as equal, is requested to  accord sanction to form an association for  the above said purposes.” 31. Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code relates to the  statements conducing public mischief.   Sub­section (1)(b)  of Section 505 IPC reads as follows: Page 38 39 “ Section   505.   Statements   conducing   to   public  mischief.­

(a)xxx  xxx xxx (b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause,  fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the  public whereby any person may be induced to commit an  offence   against   the   State   or   against   the   public  tranquility; or (c)xxx  xxx  xxx,   shall   be   punished   with   imprisonment   which   may  extend   to   three   years,   or   with   fine,   or   with  both.” 32. In the present case nothing has been brought to the  notice   of   this   Court   to   prove   that   the   appellant   with  JUDGMENT intent to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any  section of the  public or to induce  to commit an offence  against   the   State   Government   or   against   the   public  tranquility, issued  the above said press statement.  Therefore, it is not clear on what basis the charge  under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection)  Page 39 40 Act, 1922 and Section 505(1)(b) of the   IPC was levelled  against the appellant. 33. From   the   final   report   filed   in   the   Fairlands   Police 

find   that   in   absence   of   ingredients   to   hook­up   the  appellant   under   the   aforesaid   sections   of   law   it   was  advised   to   drop   the   criminal   case   and   the   same   was  accordingly dropped.  34. The appellant was declared as 'Goonda' under detention  th order   dated  9   January,   1998   and   was   detained   under   the  Tamil   Nadu   Act   14   of   1982.     'Goonda'   is   defined   under  Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 which reads  as follows: JUDGMENT “ Section 2(f) “Goonda”   means a person, who  either   by   himself   or   as   a   member   of   or  leader   of   a   gang   habitually   commits,   or  attempts to commit or abets the commission  of offence, punishable under Chapter XVI or  Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian  Penal Code (Central Act XLV of 1860).” 35. Section 2(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 defines  "acting   in   any   manner   prejudicial   to   the   maintenance   of  public order", which in the case of 'Goonda' means  Page 40 41 “ Section   2(a):   “acting   in   any   manner  prejudicial   to   the   maintenance   of   public  order” means –

36. In   the   present   case   the   respondents   have   failed   to  bring on record the evidence to show that the appellant was  engaged, or was making preparations for engaging, in any of  his activities as a 'Goonda' which may affect or are likely  to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. There  is   nothing   on   record   to   suggest   that   the   appellant,   who  either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang  habitually committed, or attempted to commit or abetted the  JUDGMENT commission   of   offence   punishable   under   Chapter   XVI   or  Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code. In  fact,   in   absence   of   any   such   ingredients,   the   Advisory  Board constituted under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14  of 1982 rightly held that there was no sufficient cause for  detention of the appellant. For the same very reason the  th  State Government revoked the order of detention dated 9 January,   1998   made   by   the   Commissioner   of   Police,   Salem  Page 41 42 rd City   by   G.O.   Rt.No.66   dated   3   March,   1998   issued   from  Prohibition and Excise (XIV) Department. th 37. The   4   Respondent,   E.Gopi,   the   then   Inspector   of 

press statement observed that the appellant intentionally  caused   disaffection   towards   the   Police   Department,  established by law, in Tamil Nadu and the same  was made  with   the   intention   of   committing   a   breach   of   discipline  amongst   the   Police   Force   and   to   induce   them   to   withheld  their services.   nd The same view was taken by the 2  respondent, the then  Inspector   General   and   Commissioner   of   Police,   Salem   City  who declared the appellant as "Goonda" on the basis of the  JUDGMENT aforesaid material on record and issued order of detention  th on 9  January, 1998.  Mr. D. Navukkarasu, Assistant Director of Prosecution  th by letter dated 7  January, 1998 referring to the aforesaid  incident, reported as follows: "2. The   records   reveal   that   the   activities   of  the accused Thiru. Sengodan, in having instigated  the police personnel by issue of press statement,  to   form   an   Association   of   their   own,   are  Page 42 43 prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.  (copy of press statement enclosed).

4. Considering   his   past   history   and   present  activities inciting the police personnel to form  an   Association   of   their   own   to   fight   for   their  rights, I am of the opinion that the prevailing  penal law is of no avail to curb his activities  and with a view to prevent him from acting in any   manner   prejudicial   to   the   maintenance   of   public  order,   it   is   necessary   to   make   an   order   of  detention and the accused is a fit person to be  detained as GOONDA under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982.” rd 38. The 3   respondent, M. Ramasamy, the then Inspector of  Police,   Fairlands   Police   Station,   Salem   City   in   his  affidavit   stated   that   the   appellant   who   retired   from  JUDGMENT st service on 31   October, 1997 is known for his pro­police  association activities even while he was in service.   It  was   further   stated   that   the   appellant   claimed   to   be   the  President   of   the   South   Arcot   District   Police   Association  while in service and is a self styled leader of Tamil Nadu  Government Police Officials Union now. He further submitted  th by   his   affidavit   dated   7   January,   1998   before   the  Inspector   General   and   Commissioner   of   Police,   Salem   City  Page 43 44 and   stated   that   the   appellant   was   inciting   the   police  personnel of Tamil Nadu to form an Association to fight for  their rights and later he toured districts of Coimbatore, 

acted   in   a   manner   prejudicial   to   the   maintenance   of   the  public order. It is also stated that the Inspector General  and   Commissioner   of   Police   accepted   the   aforesaid   stand  taken by the other respondents. 39. We have already noticed that there is nothing on the  record to suggest that the appellant while in service took  part   in   pro­police   association   activities   or   formed   any  association   such   as   South   Arcot   District   Police  Association. There is nothing on the record to suggest that  JUDGMENT he   formed   another   association   after   retirement,   namely,  Tamil Nadu Police Officials Union.   The respondents have  failed to bring on record any evidence to suggest that the  appellant   incited   the   police   personnel   of   Tamil   Nadu   to  form   an   association   to   fight   their   rights   against   the  Government. The respondents have also failed to bring on  record   that   the   appellant   toured   to   the   Districts   of  Coimbatore, Tiruchirapalli, Pudukottai and Chennai City and  Page 44 45 incited   serving   police   personnel   over   forming   an  association in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of  the public order. 

not the statements made by any person under Section 161 of  the Cr.P.C. or before any Court of law.   Neither any date  is shown therein nor it is stated that they are true copies  of the original documents.   41. In   the   present   case,   though   there   is   no   sufficient  cause for the detention of the appellant, in the counter­ nd affidavit   filed   by   the   Ist   respondent,   2   respondent,  V.Jegannathan, the then Inspector General and Commissioner  rd of Police, Salem City and the 3   respondent, M. Ramasamy,  JUDGMENT the   then   Inspector   of   Police,   Fairlands   Police   Station,  Salem   City,   they   have   taken   similar   plea   that   the  activities   of   the   appellant   in   having   instigating   the  police personnel   by issuing a press statement to form an  association   of   their   own   which   was   prejudicial   to   the  maintenance   of   the   public   order.   Again   similar   plea   has  been taken that the appellant was the President of South  Arcot District Police Association and after retirement on  Page 45 46 st 31   October,   1997   he   floated   a   self   styled   Union,   viz.,  Tamil Nadu Government Police Officials Union and there is a  past history and present activities to show that he incited 

statements   made   in   the   counter­affidavit   are   not   based  on   the   record   and   the   justification   given   for  nd  detention   clearly   shows   that   the   Ist   respondent,   2 respondent, V.Jegannathan, the then Inspector General and  rd Commissioner of Police, Salem City and the 3   respondent,  M. Ramasamy, the then Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police  Station,   Salem   City   with   an   intention   detained   the  th appellant on 6  January, 1998 based on facts which were not  in existence. The appellant had to remain in custody for  JUDGMENT more than two months on the basis of opinion given by the  respondents based on facts which were not in existence. 42. We   have   noticed   that   the   respondents   have   not   even  repented   in   taking   wrong   action,   they   have   nowhere  mentioned   that   the   appellant   was   wrongly   apprehended   and  taken in custody. 43. From the plain reading of the press note published in  the Tamil Newspaper "Malai Murasu" it merely shows that the  Page 46 47 appellant had made a requisition on behalf of the officials  working in the Tamil Nadu Police Department to the Hon'ble  Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Dr. Kalaignar stating that 

th the government.   Example of the incident of 30   November,  1997 has been shown in the said press statement when one of  the   constables   was   attacked   and   killed   and   wives   of   the  police personnel were forced to fight for their rights by  coming to the street to bring certain facts to the notice  of the State Government.  It was mentioned that in order to  avoid this situation a request has already been made to the  Government   by   the   officials   in   the   Police   Department   to  form   an   Association/Union   to   act   accordingly.     Thereby,  JUDGMENT Hon'ble   Dr.   Kalaignar,   the   then   Chief   Minister   was  requested to accord sanction to form an Association for the  above said purpose. 44.  The aforesaid press statement does not make out a case  either   under   Section   3   of   the   Police   (Incitement   to  Disaffection) Act, 1992 or under Section 505(1)(b) of the  IPC. On the other hand, the press release shows that the  Page 47 48 appellant acted in accordance with the 1966 Act under which  permission is required to form an Association.  45. In   the   case   of   State   of   Bihar   and   another   vs.   P.P. 

222, this Court defined mala fides and held: “50.   Mala   fides   means   want   of   good   faith,  personal bias, grudge, oblique or improper motive  or   ulterior   purpose.   The   administrative   action  must be said to be done in good faith, if it is  in   fact   done   honestly,   whether   it   is   done  negligently   or   not.   An   act   done   honestly   is  deemed   to   have   been   done   in   good   faith.   An  administrative authority must, therefore, act in  a bona fide manner and should never act for an  improper motive or ulterior purposes or contrary  to the requirements of the statute, or the basis  of   the   circumstances   contemplated   by   law,   or  improperly   exercised   discretion   to   achieve   some  ulterior purpose. The determination of a plea of  mala   fide   involves   two   questions,   namely   (i)  whether there is a personal bias or an oblique  motive,   and   (ii)   whether   the   administrative  action is contrary to the objects, requirements  and   conditions   of   a   valid   exercise   of  administrative power. JUDGMENT 51.  The action taken must, therefore, be proved  to   have   been   made   mala   fide   for   such  considerations. Mere assertion or a vague or bald  statement   is   not   sufficient.   It   must   be  demonstrated either by admitted or proved facts  and circumstances obtainable in a given case. If  it is established that the action has been taken  mala fide for any such considerations or by fraud  on   power   or   colourable   exercise   of   power,   it  cannot be allowed to stand.” Page 48 49 This   Court   in   the   same   case   of   P.P.   Sharma   (supra)  further   held   that   the   person   against   whom   mala   fides   or  bias was imputed should be impleaded as a party respondent 

allegations.  46. In this case the appellant has not only made assertion  but demonstrated by placing either by admitted or proved  facts   and   circumstances   obtainable   that   even   though   the  case is not made out but he was harassed.  47. Personal liberty is of the widest amplitude covering  variety   of   rights.   Its   deprivation   shall   be   only   as   per  procedure   prescribed   in   the   Code   and   the   Evidence   Act  conformable   to   the   mandate   of   the   Supreme   Law,   the  Constitution. The investigator must be alive to the mandate  JUDGMENT of Constitution and is not empowered to trample upon the  personal   liberty   of   a   person   when   he   has   acted   by  malafides,   as   held   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of     P.P.  Sharma (supra). 48. It has already been noticed that the respondents before  the   Advisory   Board   or   before   the   trial   court   failed   to  bring on record any evidence to frame the charges against  Page 49 50 the appellant under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to  Disaffection) Act, 1992 and under Section 505(1)(b) of the  IPC or under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.   In spite of 

rd City and the 3  respondent, M. Ramasamy, the then Inspector  of Police, Fairlands Police Station, Salem City before this  Court   have   taken   similar   plea   that   the   appellant   was  inciting   the   police   personnel   in   Tamil   Nadu   to   form   an  association   to   fight   for   their   rights   and   toured   the  districts   of   Coimbatore,   Tiruchirapalli,   Pudukottai   and  Chennai City and incited the serving police personnel over  forming   of   an   association,   and   acted   in   a   manner  prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. By way of  JUDGMENT additional   affidavit   certain   so   called   statements   of  persons have been enclosed which have been filed without  any affidavit and were neither the part of the trial court  record or material placed before the Advisory Board.   The  nd rd th  aforesaid  action  on the part  of the Ist,  2 ,  3   and  4 respondent   in   support   of   their   act   of   detaining   the  appellant   illegally   by   placing   some   material   which   has  beyond the record justifies the appellant's allegation that  Page 50 51 the respondents abused their power and position to support  their unfair order.  49. In view of the observation made above, though we do not 

respondent­State and its officers have grossly abused legal  power to punish the appellant to destroy his reputation in  a   manner   non­oriented   by   law   by   detaining   him   under   the  Tamil   Nadu   Act   14   of   1982   in   lodging   a   Criminal   Case  No.11/98   under   Section   3   of   the   Police   (Incitement   to  Disaffection) Act, 1992 and under Section 505(1)(b) of the  IPC   based   on   the   wrong   statements   which   were   fully  unwarranted.  50. This Court in the case of  Bhut Nath Mete vs. State of  JUDGMENT W.B., (1974) 1 SCC 645,  held that an "Administrative order  which is based on reasons of fact which do not exist must,  therefore, be held to be infected with an abuse of power".  The present case is also covered by the observation as we  find   that   the   action   taken   by   the   respondents   based   on  reasons of fact which do not exist, therefore, the same is  held to be infected with an abuse of power.  Page 51 52 51. In view of the finding aforesaid, we allow the appeal  and impose a cost of Rs.2 lacs on the State of Tamil Nadu  for payment in favour of the appellant.   The respondents 

…………………………………………………………………………. J.                      (G.S. SINGHVI) ………………………… …………………………………………….J.                     (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) NEW DELHI, JULY 1 , 2013. JUDGMENT Page 52