9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Vagueness of Grounds of Detention 2. Delay in Disposing of Representations 3. Application of Mind by Detaining Authority Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Vagueness of Grounds of Detention: The petitioners argued that the grounds of detention were vague, denying them their constitutional right to make effective representations against the orders of detention. The grounds of detention included allegations of unauthorized milling of paddy, smuggling rice to Meghalaya for profit, and unauthorized hoarding of rice and sugar, which created scarcity and high prices in the Gauhati market. The court noted that the grounds did not specify the period during which the unauthorized milling and smuggling occurred, nor did they provide particular instances of smuggling. The court held that the first ground of detention was vague, which was sufficient to vitiate the detention orders. The court emphasized that the detenu must be furnished with adequate particulars to make an effective representation, as required by Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court cited several precedents, including "The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya" and "Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj v. The State of Delhi and Others," to support its conclusion that the detention orders were invalid due to the vagueness of the grounds. 2. Delay in Disposing of Representations: The petitioners contended that there was inordinate delay in disposing of their representations by the government, which vitiated their detention. The representations were submitted on 5-8-1973 and were rejected by the State Government on 28-8-1973. The court did not find it necessary to address this issue in detail, given its decision on the vagueness of the grounds. However, it noted that the delay in considering the representations could be a factor in determining the legality of the detention. 3. Application of Mind by Detaining Authority: The petitioners argued that the detaining authority did not apply its mind to the facts of the cases to determine whether it was necessary to detain them to prevent activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The court observed that if the detaining authority had no particulars regarding the smuggling operation, it could not have been satisfied that the petitioners were smuggling rice to Meghalaya for profit. The court also noted that the Advisory Board's consideration of the representations did not preclude the court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution to determine whether the grounds of detention were vague. The court concluded that the detention orders were invalid due to the lack of adequate particulars and the failure of the detaining authority to apply its mind to the facts. Separate Judgments: - Majority Judgment: The majority judgment held that the detention orders were invalid due to the vagueness of the grounds and the failure of the detaining authority to provide adequate particulars. The court ordered the immediate release of the petitioners from custody. - Dissenting Opinion by Beg, J.: Justice Beg dissented, arguing that the grounds of detention were not vague when read as a whole and that the Advisory Board had the jurisdiction to consider all objections, including the alleged vagueness of the grounds. He emphasized the importance of allowing the Advisory Board to complete its consideration of the cases before the court intervenes. Justice Beg would have dismissed the writ petitions. Conclusion: The Supreme Court, by a majority judgment, held that the detention orders were invalid due to the vagueness of the grounds and the failure to provide adequate particulars, which denied the petitioners their constitutional right to make effective representations. The court ordered the immediate release of the petitioners from custody.
|
