Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SASTHI KEOT
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/02/1974
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH
CITATION:
1974 AIR 525 1974 SCR (3) 313
1974 SCC (4) 131
ACT:
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 s.
3(3)--Vagueness of grounds--opportunity not afforded for
making representation--Effect of.
HEADNOTE:
Pursuant to an order of detention issued under s. 3(1) read
with s. 3(2) of the Maintenance of internal Security Act,
1971 the petitioner was detained. One: of the grounds of
detention, which weighed with the detaining authority, the
Government and the Advisory Board was that the petitioner
was a "man of desperate habits and dangerous character and
also prone to committing theft of underground cables".
Allowing the petition tinder Art. 32 of the Constitution,
HELD : The order of detention is in violation of both Art.
22(5) of the Constitution and s. 3(3) of the Act and
therefore must be quashed. The grounds "desperate habits"
and "dangerous character" cannot be regarded as anything but
vague grounds. Apart from the vice of vagueness every
desperate or dangerous man cannot be run down under s. 3 of
the Act. Moreover, the vital %-et injurious dossier about
the petitioner has not been communicated to him and,
opportunity afforded for making a proper representation.
[314 B]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1607 of
1973.
Under Art. 32 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in the
nature of habeas corpus.
Sadhu Singh, for the petitioner--
Dalip Singh and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-The petitioner has moved this Court under-
art. 32 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus, he being under detention by order of the
District Magistrate, Burdwan, under sub-s.(1), read with
sub-s.(2) of S. 3 of MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security
Act, 1971). Various grounds, similar to those considered by
us in Bhut Nath Mate v. State of West Bengal(1), have been
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
urged, and our conclusions thereon are similar to those we
have already expressed in the other writ petitions.
It is important to note that in the atlidavit-in-opposition,
filed on behalf of the respondent we find a statement as
under
"I further state that it appears from the records that the
detenue petitioner is a man of desperate habits and
dangerous character and also prone to committing theft of
underground telecommunication cable."
(1) Writ Petition No. 1456 of 1973; judgment delivered on
February 8, 1974.
314
This has been relied upon by the State as additional ground
in ’Support of the detention, apart from the theft of
cables, recited in the detention order and repeated in the
counter affidavit. Counsel candidly ,admitted that this
additional circumstance had been placed before the State
Government and the Advisory board, and certainly was
before .the District Magistrate when he passed the detention
order. It is perfectly plain that the authorities have been
influenced by the report ,of the police that the petitioner
was "a man of desperate habits and dangerous character and
also prone to committing theft of underground cables." We do
not regard ’desperate habits’ and ’dangerous Character’ .as
anything but vague. Apart from the vice of vagueness which
perhaps may not matter so far as the satisfaction. of the
authorities is concerned, every desperate or dangerous man
cannot be run down under s. 3 of the MISA. Moreover, this
vital yet injurious dossier about the petitioner has not
been communicated to him and opportunity afforded for making
a proper representation contra. Therefore there is
violation both of art. 22(5) of the Constitution and of
s.3(3) of the Act. In this view we are constrained to quash
the detention order on the petitioner and
direct his release.
P.B.R.
Petition allowed.
315