Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1972 (5) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order or security of the State". Pursuant to the order the petitioner was arrested on that very day and detained in Hooghly Jail. 2. The grounds of detention served on the petitioner on that occasion were as follows : (1) On 8-7-71 at about 21.00 hours you along with your associates held a meeting in a house at village Jagannathpur, P.S. Khanakul, District Hooghly and decided to kill Jotedars and richmen of the locality. (2) On 10-7-71 at about 21.30 hours you along with your associates attacked one Sk. Ismail s/o L. Sk. Lakhe of Sathpaitha, P.S. Khanakul, District Hooghly and tried to assault him by Tange and a dagger with intent to kill him. (3) On 25-8-71 at about 16.30 hours you along with your associates addressed a meeting at .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... able on either of his two contentions. 4. The Act confers extraordinary power on the executive to detain a person without recourse to the ordinary laws of the land and to a trial by courts. Obviously, such a power places the personal liberty of such a person in extreme peril against which he is provided with a limited right of challenge only. There can, therefore, be no doubt that such a law has to be strictly construed. Equally also, the power conferred by such a law has to be exercised with extreme care and scrupulously within the bounds laid down in such a law. 5. Section 3 of the Act empowers the authorities specified therein to detain a person on the specific grounds laid down therein, namely, preventing the person concerned from act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ached to each of them has by now been well crystalised. So that the authority passing an order of detention can very well know the danger, or the likely danger to any one or more of the objects set out in Section 3 from the activities of the person concerned. 7. In Dr. Lohia v. Bihar this Court explained the difference between the three concepts of law and order, public order and the security of the State and fictionally drew three concentric circles, the largest representing law and order, the next representing public order and the smallest representing security of the State. Every infraction of law must necessarily affect order, but an act affecting law and order may not necessarily also affect the public or der Likewise, an act may affe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at is not so, because the impugned order states that the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to "the maintenance of public order or the security of the State." The satisfaction of the District Magistrate was on the disjunctive and not conjunctive grounds, which means that he was not certain whether he had reached his subjective satisfaction as to the necessity of exercising his power of detention on the ground of danger to the public order or danger to the security of the State. If he felt the necessity to detain the petitioner from the activities described by him in the grounds of detention on the ground that those activities affected .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that if a statute mentioned different grounds for the detention of a person, an order of detention should specify distinctly the ground or grounds for which the detenu had been ordered to be detained, and it would not be permissible to State that the detenu had been ordered to be detained for ground (a) of ground (b). The use of the word 'or' would, in cases falling under such a statute, show an element of casualness in the making of the order. In support of this proposition, the majority cited with approval the observations made by this Court in Jagannath Misra v. Orissa . 10. It is, therefore, clear that before the authority invokes its power under Section 3, it must be satisfied and must expressly say in its order that the alle .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates