A writ petition challenging a preventive detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act on grounds of delay in handling the representation, alleged post-signing filling of blanks in the order, and vagueness of grounds. The Supreme Court found no delay, no evidence of tampering, and grounds sufficiently specific, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
\ .•
803
A
SK. IBRAHIM
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
December 19, 1973
B
[H. R. KHANNA AND M .. H. BEG, JJ.]
Maintenance of Jnternal Security Act, 1911 (Act 26 of 1911)-D•tentlon under sec. 3(1) and (2)-Activities prejudicial to the niaintenance of supplies and services essential to ·the co1nmunily-:Held, on facts that the grou,uls were not vague and there was no delay in considering the representation.
The detention order served on the petitioner stated that. on three different c dates be along with his associates was found to have smuggled rice to the rationing areas of Hoogly and Howrah and violently atlacked the anti-smuggling party and disrupted the smooth running of the train service. The representation of the deteau was received by the State Government on June 2. 1973. The State Government rejected the representation on Jllne 4, 1973 and forwarded the samQ to the Advi~ •ory Board. The Advisory Board by their report dated July 11, 1973, held that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. On July 30, 1973, the State Government confirmed the order of detention. The detention was inter alia challenged on the ground of delay and vagueness of grounds.
D
Dismissing the writ petition,·
HELD: (1) The State Government received the representation on June 2, 1973 and rejected the same on June 4, 1973. There was no delay in tho dispasal of the representation by the State Government. There was also no inordinate delay although a period of more than ten days had elapsed from the date of aubmissioa of the representation and its actual disposal. [804 H]
(2) The mere fact that the detention order is on a cyclostyled sheet wherein E ncce.uary particulars were filled in ink would not go to show that the particulars in ink were filled subsequent to the signing of the detention order. There · was no evidence to prove the allegation. [805 C]
(3) The date, time and place of each of the incidents were specified in the· grounds. Particulars were also given regarding the nature of the activities of the petitioner. The facts stated in the grounds of detention were sufficient to apprise the petitioner of the precise activities on account of which the detention orderbad F been made. Th.e fact that the.names of the associates of the petitionea were not mentioned in the &rounds of detention would not ao to show that they suffered from the infirmity of vagueness. The Coqrts look with disfavour upon vague grounds of detention, because such grounds fail to convey to the detenu the pre<.:ise •ctivi~y on account of which he is being detained 150 as to enable him to make an Cffective representation. [806C] '
O!UG!NAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1641 of 1973.
G Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ in the nature of habetp corpus. · __..
S. C: Maiumdar and A. Madan, ior the petitioner.
Sukwnar Ghosh, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Col!rt was delivered by·
H
KHANNA, J. The District .Ma£istrate of Hooghly pa,sed an order. on May 9. 1973 under sub-section (1) .read with. sub-section (2)'C of section 3 of the Maintenance of Intern'al Securiiy Act, 1971 (Aclt:
[1974] 2 S.C.B.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
804
A
No. 26 of 1971 \ for the dete11tion of the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting i_n any mnner prejukiicial ~ the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the commumty. In pursuance of the detentfon onler, the petitioner was arrested on May 14, 1973 antl was served with the order of detention as also the grounds :if lletention together with vernacular translation thereof. Report abot the. making of ·the· detention oirder was sent by the District Magistrate to the State Gover'nment and the said Govermnent approved the detention ord;_r on May 18, 1973. The case C>f the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Boa.II by the State Government on June 5, 1973. !he petitioner sent a representation a~ainst his detention and the same was received by the State Government on June 2. 1973. The State Government rejeCted the representation on June 4, 1973 and forwarded the same to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board after considering the representation and hearing the petitioner in person made report to the State Government on. July 11, 1973. Opinion was expressed by the Board that there was suffiCient cause for the detention of the petitioner. On Julv 30. 1973 the State Government confirmed the order for the de\cntion of the petitioner.
B
D
The petitioner in the meantime filed petition under section 491 of the Code ·of Criminal Procedure before the Calcutta High Court. The said petition was hearll by a Division Bench of the High Court and was dismissed as per judgment dated July 4, 1973. The present petition under article 32 of the Constituton was thereafter sent bv the petitioner from jail on July 23, 1973 for the issue of a writ Qf hdbeas corpus. ·
E
The petition has been resisted by the State of West Bengal and the affidavit of Shri Sukumar S!on, Deputy Secretary, Home (Sp,cial) Department has been filed in opposition to the petition. Arguments have been addressed before us by Mr. S. C. Majumdar amicus curiae and Mr. Sukumar Ghosh for the State of West Bengal. Mr. Majumdar has assailel:I the detention of the potitioner on three grounds.
F
It has been argued in the first instance by Mr. Majumdar that there was delay on the part of the State· Government in considering th~ representation of the petitioiner and such delay vitiates the detention. This contention. in our opinion, is without any force. It would appear from the affidavit filed by Shri Sukumar Sen that the representation sent by the petitioner was received by the Stato Government in its Home Department on June 2. 1973 after it had been forwarded by the Superintendent, Hooghly Jail. The said representation was then considered anl! was rejected by the State Government on June 4. 1973. It cannot, in our ooim\m, be said that there was any delav in the disposal of the representation of the petitioner by the State Government. It has been ureed that the representatiOn was sent by him from jail on Mav 25, 1973 and that a period of 10 davs elaosed froni the date oi the submission of the representation and its actual disposal. ·The above period cannot also be ·said to be so inord;natelv long as might affect the validity of .the detention.
G
H
IBRAHIM v. WEST BENGAL (Khanna, !.)
805
It has next been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the . detention order ccpltain<!I blank~ which were filled in subsequent to th~ signing of that order by the District Magistrate. This. allegation has been denied in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government and, in our opinion, there is no cogent ground to accept the correctness of the alle11.ation. The petitiQner was admittedly not .B presem at the time the detentio11 order was signed by the District MaJ!istrate and. as such. he cannot be in a position to state whether the detention order contauied blanks when it was. signed by the District Magistrate. The mere fact that the detention order is on a cyclostyled: sheet wherein neC\lssary particulars were filled in ink would not 11.0 to show that the particulars in ink were filled in sub. sequent to the signing of the detention order.
c
Lastly, it has been ar11.ued by Mr. Maiumdar that the grounds of detention on the basis of which the order for the detention was made were va11.µe. In this connection WC· firtl that the grounds of detention were as under :
"On 31-3-73 in the arly hours of the morning you D and your. associates were found to smul1.Jlle rice by train No. of 2 Dn. ITarakeiltwar-Sheoraphuli local) from non-ratiOllled areas to rationing areas of Hooghly and Howrah District in contraventiqn of the provisions of the West Ben11.3l Rice and Palldy !Restriction on Movement) Order, 1968. At 04.27 hrs.' of tlate when the train reached Kamarkundu Railway Station the anti-smuggling staff of Dankuni P.S. che<;kPO&t under the command of SJ . . Biren Das. seized 14 auini8Js and 55 kgS. of smuggled rice belonll.inj!; to You and your associates after rummal!ing the said train. At this you -and your associates launched a violent attack on the anti-smu11.11.ling · party · and threw ballasts towards them causin2 injuries on the persons of F some of the anti-smung staff with a view to scare them awav and thus attempted tQ escaPe with the. smuggled rice. The ·anti·smu2clin2 party had to open fire in self-defence and could be able to arrest two of your associates on chase when vou and vour other associates mana2ed to escape. As a result of. this. there w.S ·senous disruption in t)le ooth running of train lierVices on Tarakewar:ltowrah line G causinj!; inconvenience to the travelling·public and tranship· ment of commodities essential to the community. The said activity of vours thus attract section 3 ( 1 )(a)( iii) of the Maintenance of Tnternal Secqriiv Act, 1971 (Act No. 26 of. 1971).
D
2; On 12-4!-73 at 11-21 hrs. you and your associates H were found to hoard train No. 4' Dn. (Bombay-Howrah Mail) . with hu2e auantitv of rice with a view . to smuggle thet11 from non -rationed areas to the industrial belts of
[1974] 2 S.C.R.
SUPREM.E COURT REPORTS
806
Howrah in contravention of the provisions of the West Bengal ruce and Poody (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1%8 when the train stOl!{JCd at Jaugram Railway Stauon on Burdwan-Howrab Chord line due to alarm chain pulling bv some of your associates as per previous arrangements, s. P. N. 0. Dey of G.R.P.. Enforcement Branch, Howrah with his staff who were travelling by the said train could be' able to slop th~ train at Chandanpore Railway Station with the help of the Guard of the train. On seeing the S.I. and his party, vou-\Um.ped down from the train and fled away from there leaving behind the bags of smuggled rice weighing 5 quintals. The S.l. and his staff could also be able to seize 41 quintals and 75 kgs. of smuggled rice from the possession of your O.ther associates wbo also managed to escape with you. The total value oi the smuggled rice seized was.about Rs. 10,000/-, By your such act you tried to frustrate the food policy of the Government in respect of supplv and distribution of essential commodities to the community. The said activitv of vours thus attract section S(l)(a)(iii) c: the Maintenance of Internal Secllrity Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971).
It wo~d appear from the above that the date, time and place of each of the incidents were sPCCified in the l!l'OUDds. Particulars were also liven rCl!ardin2 the nature of the activities of the petitioner. The facts stated in the grounds of detention were sufficient to apprise lhe petitioner of the orecise activities on account of which the detention order had been made. It cannot in the circumstances be said that the petitioner was in anv way handicapped in makillll an effective rel)fCSentation. The fact that the names of the associates of the petitioner were not mentioned in the grounds of detention woultl not e:o to show that they suffered from the infirmitv of vagueness. The courts look with disfavour upon vague grounds of
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
IBRAHIM v. WEST BENGAL (Kha1111a, J.) 807 '
The petition consequently fails and is dismissed.
3 issues framed by the court
Did the delay in disposing of the detenu's representation vitiate the detention?
Did blanks filled in ink on the cyclostyled detention order show particulars were added after signing?
Were the grounds of detention vague so as to prevent an effective representation?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sk. Ibrahim
State of West Bengal
H. R. Khanna
M. H. Beg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
