9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. 2. Indefiniteness and uncertainty of the detention period. 3. Adequacy of the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary instead of the District Magistrate. 4. Sufficiency and communication of grounds of detention. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Detention Order: The petitioner was detained under an order dated January 14, 1972, by the District Magistrate, Burdwan, under Section 3(2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The grounds communicated to the detenu involved thefts of copper wire or cable used for telecommunication services, which disrupted essential telecommunication services. The contention raised was that theft of telecommunication wire or cables, while disrupting 'services' essential to the community, had no connection with the maintenance of 'supplies'. The court rejected this contention, stating that "Supplies" and "Services" in Section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the Act are to be construed pragmatically in the context of each case, emphasizing the phrase "essential to the life of the community." The court concluded that telecommunication is both a "supply" and a "service," and thus, the detention order was valid. 2. Indefiniteness and Uncertainty of the Detention Period: The detention order stated that the detention would continue "until the expiry of 12 months from the date of his detention or until the expiry of Defence of India Act, 1971, whichever is later." The petitioner argued that this made the period of detention indefinite and uncertain, indirectly infringing Article 22(7)(b) of the Constitution. The court referred to its earlier judgment in Fagu Shah v. State of West Bengal, which held that the maximum period of detention could be linked to the duration of an emergency, as the power to detain must be adequate in duration to achieve its objective. The court concluded that the period fixed under Section 13 of the Act was not indefinite or uncertain. 3. Adequacy of the Affidavit Filed by the Deputy Secretary: The petitioner contended that the District Magistrate, who passed the detention order, did not furnish his affidavit, and the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary was insufficient as he did not personally deal with the case. The court emphasized that the proper person to file the counter-affidavit in a habeas corpus petition is the District Magistrate or a Senior Officer who personally dealt with the case. The explanation provided, that the Magistrate was "preoccupied in the matter of maintenance of law and order and procurement of rice," was deemed unsatisfactory. The court noted that the Deputy Secretary's affidavit was based on paper information and not personal knowledge, which was inadequate to rebut the petitioner's allegations. 4. Sufficiency and Communication of Grounds of Detention: The petitioner argued that the grounds of detention were false, vague, and deficient in material particulars, and that all material or "reliable information" showing the petitioner as a "veteran copper wire criminal" was not communicated to him. The court observed that the non-communication of this material violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution, as it deprived the detenu of the opportunity to make an effective representation. The court concluded that the detention was illegal due to the non-communication of the full grounds or material. Conclusion: The court allowed the petitions, set aside the detention orders, and directed that the petitioners be set at liberty forthwith. The non-communication of material information and the inadequacy of the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary were significant factors leading to the decision. The court reiterated the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards to maintain the delicate balance between individual liberty and social security.
|
