1974 (8) TMI 104 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971 being Act No. 26 of 1971 valid? Whether a detention order is valid or not? Held that - The Act does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. Merely because a detenu is liable to be tried in a criminal court for the commission of a criminal offence or to be proceeded against for preventing him from committing offences dealt with in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not by itself debar the Government from taking action for his detention under the Act. Second the fact that the Police arrests a person and later on enlarges him on bail and initiates steps to prosecute him under-the Code of Criminal Procedure and even lodges a first information report may be no bar against the District Magistrate issuing an order under the preventive detention. Third where the concerned person is actually in jail custody at the time when an order of detention is passed against him and is not likely to be released for a fair length of time it may be possible to contend that there could be no satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority as to the likelihood of such a person indulging in activities which would jeopardise the security of the State or the public order. Fourth the mere circumstance that a detention order is passed during the pendency of the prosecution will not violate the order. Fifth the order of detention is a precautionary measure. It is based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of a person based on his past conduct in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.
2. Violation of Article 19.
3. Violation of Article 21.
4. Violation of Article 22(5).
5. Violation of Article 14.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971:
The Supreme Court addressed the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (the Act). The Act empowers the Central and State Governments to detain individuals to prevent activities prejudicial to national security, public order, and essential supplies. The Court upheld the Act, emphasizing that preventive detention is a precautionary measure based on the likelihood of future conduct inferred from past behavior. The Act's provisions, including the establishment of Advisory Boards and the requirement for periodic reviews, were deemed consistent with the Constitution.

2. Violation of Article 19:
The petitioners argued that the Act's preventive detention provisions were unreasonable and violated Article 19, which guarantees fundamental freedoms. The Court noted that preventive detention is distinct from punitive detention and does not parallel criminal prosecution. The Constitution allows preventive detention to safeguard national security and public order, thus not infringing on Article 19. The Court referenced the A.K. Gopalan case, affirming that Article 22 is a complete code for preventive detention, and Article 19 is not applicable in such cases.

3. Violation of Article 21:
The petitioners contended that the Act violated Article 21 by not providing a right to be heard. The Court clarified that preventive detention aims to prevent future acts rather than punish past actions. The procedural safeguards under Article 22(5), including the right to make representations and the review by an Advisory Board, were deemed sufficient to meet the requirements of Article 21. The Court emphasized that the Act provides for fair consideration of representations without necessitating an oral hearing.

4. Violation of Article 22(5):
The petitioners argued that the Act did not provide an objective procedure for detention, violating Article 22(5). The Court held that the Act's procedural requirements, including timely communication of detention grounds and the opportunity to make representations, were in line with Article 22(5). The Advisory Board's role in reviewing detention orders ensures procedural fairness. The Court rejected the need for a speaking order, stating that proper consideration by the Government and the Advisory Board suffices.

5. Violation of Article 14:
The petitioners claimed that Section 3 of the Act violated Article 14 by allowing discriminatory detention practices. The Court distinguished between preventive detention and prosecution, noting that they serve different purposes and involve different authorities. Preventive detention is based on the likelihood of future conduct, whereas prosecution punishes past actions. The Court concluded that Article 14 is inapplicable as preventive detention and prosecution are not synonymous.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The Act was found to be constitutionally valid, with its provisions aligning with Articles 19, 21, 22(5), and 14. The Court emphasized the distinct nature of preventive detention and the adequacy of procedural safeguards provided by the Act. The petitions challenging the Act on various constitutional grounds were dismissed, affirming the legality of preventive detention under the Act.

← Previous Next →