Preventive detention under MISA challenged on the ground that English version of grounds added 'or security of the State' to public order recital, showing non-application of mind. Supreme Court held Hindi version authentic and discrepancy an inadvertent error; other grounds also rejected; petition dismissed.
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.
215
A
BINOD BIHARI MAHATO
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
October 1, 1974
(P. N. BHAGWATI AND R.. S. SARKARIA, JJ.]
. Mai11tma11ce of I11ternal Security Act, 1971, Sectio11 3(1)(a)(ii)-Petitioner furni!!Jred with order of detention and the grounds of detention i11 Hindi as well as i11 English-English version of grounds containin11 the expression "or the securitv of the State in addition to "the maintenance of the public order" in the Hindi versio11-0rder of detention, if vitiated,
| c | The petitiorterwasarrested at Dhanbad on6!liMarch,1974and after l'eing produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, hewastaken to Bhagal- pur Central Jail from Dhanbad. On an application madebythe petitioner, the Sessions Judge granted bail to the petitioner, and an order dated 18th |
|---|---|
| March, 1974, waspassed forreleaseofthe petitioner. On the same day |
|
| thatis18th March,1974,the District Magistrate, Dhanbad passed an order |
|
| detaining the petitioner under section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Secu- |
|
| rity Act,1971,on the ground that it.wasnecessarytodo so with a view to |
|
| preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prej\ldicialtothe |
|
| m~intenanceof public order. Pursuant to the orderofdetention, the peti· |
|
| D | tionerwasarrestedon21st March,1974assoonashewasreleased on bail. |
| At the time ofhisarrest the HindiaswellasEnglish versions of the orderof |
|
| detention\Wreserved on him together with the grounJs of detention which |
|
| were alsoinHindi and English versions. After enumerating the grounds, the | |
| Hindi version proceeded to recite the satisfactionofthe District Magistrate |
|
| that in the circumstances hewassatisfied that if the petitioner "is allowedto |
|
| remain at largehewillindulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance |
|
| of public order" and for preventionofsuch activities he . considered the |
|
| detentionofthepetitioner necessary. The words "or security of the State" | |
| E | were added in the recital of the satisfaction in the English version though |
| ihey were absent in the Hindi version. The petitioner's· representationto |
|
| the State Government was· rejectedbythe Govt. on 24th April,1974.The |
|
| Advisory Board before which the case of the petitioner had been placedbythe |
|
| State Govt.gavean opportunitytothe petitioner to be personally heard and | |
| after consideringallthe facts and circumstancesofthe case, itgaveits opinion |
|
| 0'1,2ndMay, 1974that therewassufficient cause for the detentionof.t:he |
|
| petitioner. After the rejectionofthe petition under Art. 226 ofthe |
|
| F | Constitutionbythe High Court. the petitionerfiledthe present petition under f h ii hlli h liifhi i |
| Art.32o te Consttuton caengng te vadtyos detenton. |
It was contended that (i) the recital "or security of the Stale" in the English version of the grounds of detention showed that the District Magis· .trate did not apply his mind with any seriousness either to the acts alleged in the grounds of detention ag!linst the petitioner or to. the question whether they fell within the purview of the expression "the maintenance of public order" or "the security of the State" or both and that was sufficient to vitiate G the order .if detention; '(ii) the first ground in so far as ·it aHeged that the petitioner was propagating communal hatred between Adivasis and others (Biharis) and also between Adivasis and non-Advasis was vague and unintelligible and (iii) the District Magistrate had taken into account many more instances than those set out in grounds (2) and (6).
Dismissing the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution,
H HELD : If the order of detention purports to be based on the satisfaction of the detaining authority that it is necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventine him from acting in a manner pre.iudicial to the mainten· ance of public order or security of the State, ·it would clearly be an invalid order. [220 E-F]
[1975] 2 s.p.!l.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
216
Kishor,i Mohan Bera v. Tlze State of We.111 Bengal, A.LR. 1972 ~.C. 1.749 and Akshoy Konai v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 300, rehed on.
If it appears in the present case that e or.der of deention made by the District Magistrate was based 011 the spsfac!1on that 1t as necessy .. to detain the petitioner with a view preventmg him from carymg on activ1ues prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or the security of te Stte, .1t would have to be struck down as invalid. But there is no such mfirm1ty ID the otder of detention. It is only in the English version of the groun~ f detention that the words "or security of the State'' has been added. This 1s obviously the result of inadvertence and no argument can be founded upon it. In the first place, Hindi being the officfal language of the State, it IS the Hindi versim, of the grounds of detention whici) must !Je regarded as authentic and the validity of the detention must be judged with reference to the Hindi version of the grounds and not the English version. Secondly, even on the Erigiish version of the grounds of detention, it is clear that at the end of each of the grounds it is stated in so ma.ny words that the acts of the petitioner were prejudicial t.o the maintenance of public order and ther is no reference to prejudice to the security of the State. It is only in the con" clusion based on these facts that there is a recital of the satisfaction that if the petitioner is allowed to remain at large, he would indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or the security Of the State. The words "or the securit yof the State" are obviously incongruous in the context. There can be no doubt that these words have crept in the English version of the grounds of detention through some mistake. The order of detention cannot be invalidated on the basis of such an obvious error, ignoring the order of detention in both its Hindi and English versions, ·the Hindi ve1sion of the ~rounds and the totality of the context so far as the English version is concerned. [220 E-F; 221 E-H]
(ii) The petitioner was, according to the allegation contained in the first grounct. stirring hatred between Adivasis and out~i<.:ers. He was also propagating hatred between two other groups of people, namely. Adivasis on the one hand and non-Adivasis on the other. This allegation can hardly be reganled as vague or unintelligible. In fact the District Magistratoe gave not less than five instances containing detailed and elaborate particulars and they are sufficiently informative so as to provide more than adequate opportunity to the petitioner to make an effective representation. [222 B-Cj
(iii) What the District Magistrate meant to say by using the expression "It •vrnld not be {)Ossible. to give details ·of such instances" was that instances of ti!is nature were so many that one could not possibly have details of all of them, but there were a few before him by way of illustration and since · he bad relied on them for arrivin11 at the requisite satisfaction he proceeded to reproduce them in grounds (2) to (6). [222E-F] '
A
B
c
D
E
F
The !nstance, involvin2 removal of paddy crops from two plots of land as set out ID ground ( 4) does not stand in isolation. It is part of a series of instances set out in grounds (2), (3), (5) and (6) and if it is viewed in the context ·Jf these other instances. it is clear that it is not a localised instance affecting merely maintenance o(law and orJer but a part of public order.
[223 BJ
G
The variuus statements in regard to the activities of the petitioner in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the counter-affidavit of the respondent were obviously intended to repel the allegations of the petitioner that be was a dedicated social and public worker devoted to the uplift of the backward and down trodden c.Iasses. These facts were not taken into account by the District Magistrate for. the purpose of arriving at bis subjective satisfaction. [223D]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 278 of 1974.
H
Petition under Article 3 2 of the Constitution of India.
K. K. Sinha and S. K. Sinha, for the petitioner.
B. B. MAHATO v. B!HAR (Bhagwati, J.)
217
A Lal Narayan Sinha, Solicitor General of India, Gyan Sudha Misra md B. P. Singh, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAGWATI, J. The petitioner, who is an advocate practising in the courts in Dhanbad in the State of Bihar, has filed the present petition B challenging the validity of an order of detention dated 18th March, 197 4 made by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad under section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The case of the petitioner is that he is a prominent public figure in the District of Dhanbad and he has been Pramukh of Baliapur Anchal since the last about ten years and Vice-Chairman of. Zila Parislmd, Dhanbad since about four years. He has been associated with nwn.erous social, educational and c political institutions in the District of Dhanbad and he is engaged in diverse •activities calculated to bring about social and economic uplift of down-trodden people of Dhanbad \District. The 16th Annual Con· vention of Bihar Raiya Panchayat Parishad was scheduled to be held at Gosaidih in Dhanbad District on. 16th March, 1974 and the peti· tioner was the' Clrairman of the Reception Committee. The ruling party · was very much concerned about the growing popularity of the petitioner D with the backward classes, and therefore, with a view to undermining his position, the ruling party chose this particular time when the 16th Annual Convention of the Bihar Rajya Panchayat Parishad was shortly due. to be held and got a 'false case instituted against the petitipner at . P. S. Tundi. The petitioner was arrested at Dhanbad on 6th March, 1974 and after being produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, he was taken tq Bhagalpur Central Jail from Dhanbad. On March 11, E 1974 the petitioner made an application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for being released on bail but no immediate order was passed on that- application and the petitioner was, therefore, constrained to move the Sessions Judge for· bail on 14th March, 1974. The Sessions Judge granted bail to the petitioner and on the bail bonds being verified and accepted by the. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, an order dated 18th March, 1974 was passed for release of tge petitioner. On the same day, that F · is 18th March, 1974, the District Magistrate, Dhanbad passed an order detaining the petitioner under section 3 of the Act on the ground that it was necessary to do so with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the m~ 'r.tenance of public order. The order of detention was in· Hindi, which is the official language of the State of Bihar but there was also an English version of the order of detention. There was no material difference between the Hindi G and English versions of the order of detention. Pursuant to the order of detention, the petitioner was arrested on 21st March, 1974 as soon as he was released on bail in compliance with the order of release passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and at the time of his arrest the Hindi as well as English versions of the order of detention were served on him tqgether with the grounds of detention which were also in Hindi and English versions. The Hindi version, as translated in English, set out the following grounds of detention :
H
"l. He has beeR propagating communal. hatred between Adi basis and outsider$ (Biharis) and also between --.....__ ' \
•.••_;'
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
SUPREME C:OURT REPORTS
218
A
| Adibasisandnon-Adibasisforquitesometime.He hasbeeninstigatingtheA.dibasistotakeuparmsand- Iawsintheirownhandsinseveralspeechesandother- wise.Asaresultoftheseinstigationsandincitements, publicorderhasbeendisturlx:dseveraltimesatseveraf p1'a.ces.ItwouldI\Otbepossibletogivedetailsofsuch instances,butasillustration, afewofthemliregiven below: |
|---|
| 2.01125-2-1973,at:Katras·ceramic Factory, Tilatanr; P.S.Katras,DistrictDhanbad,heinstigatedtheem- ployeesofthesaidceramicfactoryto{~movetheout- siders(Biharis)byforcefromth_eemploymentofthe saidfactoryandinconsequenceofthesaidabetment, 200persons,armedwithdeadlyweaponslikelathi, gra,saetc.,tookoutaprocessionandattackedtheshop ofoneRamKripalDubeyan:dassaultedhimandhis fatherbymeansoflathiandgrasa,andalsodamaged thefactoryandimmediatelythereaftertheviolentpro- cessionistsattackedtheresidentialquarterssitU'atedin thefactorypremisesandassaultedthe·inmates and therebycommittedactsprejudicial tothemaintenance ofpublicorder; |
| 3.On29-8-73,jntheRailwayFootballMaidan,Gomoh, P.S.Topchanchi,DistrictDhanbad,incourseofpublic speech,heaskedthepeopletotakeJ.awintheirown handsbyspeaking'ApnaFaislaApKaro', 'Pahle GheraoKaro,FirMukkaLathSeMaro,Fir Lathi Chhalao,UsparViN•ahinSuntaHaiToSarKat,Lo'. Similarly,on3--11-73,atthesaidplace,he,inapublic meetingorganisedby"Chotanagpur-Santhal Pargana AlagRajNirmanSoamity",instigatedtolocaladvasis anctharijanstocapturethelandspurchasedbythe non· Adibasisbymeansofforceandtoharvestthestandin'll: paddycropstherefrom.Againon4-2-74,inGolf Ground,Dhanbad,P.S.anddistrictDll'anbad,ina meetingofAdibasisorganisedbyJharkhand Party, he instigatedthepeopletotakethelawintheirhandsand todisturbthepublicpeacebyuttering"AgarAaaz HarneKoiHatDikhaegaToUSkaHat KatLange,Aur AngaliDhikaegaToAngaliKatLange'andthereby committedactsprejudicialtothemaintenanceofpublic order; |
| 4.On1-11-73,at'viilageMaachkochaand Mahatotund, P.S.Topchanr.hi.DistrictDhal.1bad,inconsequenceof instigationgivenbvhim.andhisco-associates,namely, GopalChandraMunshi, SriramManjhi.Rashiklal Majhi,ShibuSorenandothersinvillageMaichokocha ·intheprecedingnil!ht,JhariManihi,BuddhuManjhi, andothers,belongingto'ShivajiSamai~forciblytook awaythestandingpaddycropsfromplotNo.383·in |
B
c
D
E
F,
G
H
8, B. MAHATO V. BIHAR (Bha&Wtlli, J.)
219•
A
B
c
D dhury of village Durgadih, K. C. ChOpra, Ismail Mia. and others and in consequence of the said abetment on 5-3-74, at about 1.30 p.m. 500 persons, armed with deadly weapons like bows and arrows, bhalla, farslra, Jathi etc., formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of looting the properties of 'Dikus' and for-· cibly removing them from there, and in prosecution
E of the said common object they surrounded the house of the said Joy Narayan Choudhury in village Durgadih, P.S. Tundi, District Dll'anbad, and started pelting brickbats and shooting arrows as a result .of which Ganga Bishnu Prasad and Girdhari Rai sustained injuries and thereafter set -fire to the house of said Joy Narayan Choudhury and thus committed •acts prejudi-
F cial to the maintenance of public ·order."
F
Then the Hindi version proceeded to recite the satisfaction of the· District Magistrate that in the circumstances he was satisfied that if the· petitioner "is allowed to remain at l•arge, he will indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" and for prevention of such activities he considered the detention of the petitioner necessary. G The English version also gave the same grounds of detention but the· satisfaction of the District Magistrate recited in the English version was a little different. It stated that the District Magistrate was satisfied that if the petitioner "is allowed to remain at large he will indulge in activities prejudicial to the ma_intenance of public order or security of the State" and for prevention of such activities he considered the deten. tion of the petitioner necessary. The words "or security of the State" were added in the recital of the satisfaction in the English version· H thou~h they were absent in the Hindi version. The petitioner made an elaborate and exhaustive representation to the State Government against the ordG_r of detention in an attempt to answer the grounds orr
[1975] 2 s.,c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
220
which the order of detention was based, but this represenration was rejected by the State Government on 24th April, 1974. In the mean time the case of the petitioner was placed by the State Government before the Advisory Board and the representation of the petitioner was also forwarded to the Advisory Board for its consideration. The Advisory Board gave an opportunity ~o the petitioner to be person-ally heard and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case gave its opinion on 2nd May, 1974 that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The State Government thereafter confirmed the order of detention on 11th May, 1974. This 'detention order was c:hallenged by the petitioner by filling a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Patna. But a . Division Bench of the High Court did not find any infirmity in the detention and by an order dated 14th May, 1974 rejected the petition. The petitioner thereupon filed the present petition in this Court under Art. 3 2 of the Constitution. challenging the validity of his detention on various grounds.
The first ground on which the validity of his detention was challenged on behalf of the petitioner was that the English version of the grounds of detention recited th•at the District Magistrate was satisfied that if the petitioner was allowed to remain at. large he would indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or security of the State. This recital showed that the District Magistrate did not apply his mind with any seriousness either to the acts alleged in the grounds of detention against the petitioner or to the question whether they fell within the purview of the expression "the maintenance of public order" or "the security of the State" or both and that was sufficient to vitiate the order of detention. Now, there can be no doubt, in view of the decisions of this Court in Kishori Mohan Bera v. The State of West Bengal(1) and Akshoy Konai v. State of West Bengal(2 ) that if the order 'of detention purports to be based on the satisfaction of the detaining authority that it is necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or security of the State, it would clearly be an invalid order. TI1e satisfaction of the detaining authority in 11uch a case would be on the disjunctive and not conjunctive grounds and tha~ would me-an that the detaining authority was not certain whether it had reached its subjective satisfaction as to the necessity of exercising the power of detention on the ground of danger to public order or danger to the security of the State. If the detaining authority felt that it was necessary to detain the petitioner on the ground that his activities affected or were likely to -affect both public order and the security of the State, it would use the conjunctive 'and' and not the disjunctive 'or' in reciting its satisfaction. Where, however, the disjunctive 'or' is used instead of the conjunctive 'and', it would mean that the detaining authority was either not certain whether the alleged activities of the petitioner endangered public order or the security of the State, or it did not seriously -apply its mind to the question whether such activities fell under one he:ad or the other and merely reproduced mechanically the language of section 3(1) (a)(ii). When such equi-
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
m A. T, R. 19'72 S. C. 1749, (2) A. I. R.1973 S. C· JOO.
B. B. MAHATO v. BIHA'R (Bhagwati, J.)
22 l
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
222
A ; ' •
I
The petitioner then contended that the first ground insofar as it .alleged that the petitioner was propagating communal hatred between Ad1vasis and other (Biharis) and also between Adivasis and non.Adivasis was vague and unintelligible and the order of detention was on that account invalid. We do not see any force in this contention. Adivasis are the original inhabitants of the area while outsiders are those Bihari.s who have come from outside and who are, therefor~, .regarded as outsiders by the original inhabitants. The petitioner was, according to this allegation contained in the first ground, stirring hatred between these two groups of people. He· was also propagating hatred between two other groups of people, namely, Adivasis on the one hand and non-Adivasis on the other. This allegation cati hardly be regarded as vague and unintelligible. In fact the District Magistrate gave not less than five instances containing detailed and elaborate particulars and they were sufficiently informative so as to provide more than adequate opportunity to the petitioner to made an effective representation .. This ground must, therefore, be regarded as wholly unjustified and must be rejected.
The next ground urged on behalf of the petitioner was that the District Magistrate had taken into account many more instances than those set outin grounds (2) to (6) and that was apparent from the use of the expression "It would not be possible to give details of such instances" in ground ( 1) . This ground is also, in our opinion, unsustainable. It is true that the District Magistrate st'ated in ground ( 1) that it would not be possible to give details of instances where by reason of instigation and abetment of the . ·petitioner disturbances of public order had taken place, but th>at does not mean that the District Magistrate had "arious instances in mind which he took into account in arriving at his subjective satisfaction without disclosing them to the petitioner. What the District Mljgistrate mc•ant to say by using this expression was that instances of this nature were so many that one could not possibly have details of all of them, but there were a few before him by way of illustra.tion ankl since he had relied on them for arriving at the requisite sasfaction, he proceeded to reproduce them in grounds (2) to (6). The only instances on which the District Magistrate relied for arriving at the requisite satisfaction were those set out in grounds (2) to (6) a.nd no others. This ground also, thenfore, cannot avail the petitioner.
It was then contended on behalf of the petitioner that the instance set out in ground (2) could not be reg'arded as one where communal hatred was -propagated by the petitioner either between Adivasis and outsiders or between Adivasis and non-Adivasis and it did not, therefore, justify the inference set out in ground ( 1). But this contention is also futile, because it is clear from the instance as narrated in ground (2) that the p_etitioner instigated the employees of Katras Ceramic · Factory to remove the outsiders (Biharis) by force from the employment of that fuctory, and in. consequence of this instigation. violence was committed by 200 persons armed with deadly weapons like lathis. bhalas etc. and if this could not be regarded as propagation of communal lratred between Advasis and outsiders (Bifiaris), we fail to see
B
c \
D
E
F
G
H
B. B. MAHATO v. BIHAR (Bhagwati, J.)
223
A what other instance can be so branded. Thls incident also had direct nexus with maintenance of public order.
The petitioner also contended that the instance set out in ground ( 4) was an instance involving removal of paddy crops from two plots of land in villages Marchacocha and Mahatotund and that could have no relation to mamtenance of public order. But.is must be remembered that this instance does not Stand in isolation. It· is a part of a series of instances set out in grc;mnds ( 2) , ( 3) , ( 5) and ( 6) and if it is viewed in the context. of these other . instances, it is clear that it is not a looalised instance affecting merely maintenance of law and order but a part of a series of acts affecting maintenance of public order._
I
G V.M.K. Petition dislnissed.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the addition of the words 'or security of the State' in the English version of the grounds of detention vitiated the detention order.
Whether the first ground alleging propagation of communal hatred was vague and unintelligible.
Whether undisclosed materials were relied on by the detaining authority in reaching his subjective satisfaction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kishori Mohan Bera v. The State of West BengalRelied on
A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1749 · Who else cites this
Akshoy Konai v. State of West BengalRelied on
A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 300 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Binod Bihari Mahato
State of Bihar
P. N. Bhagwati
R. S. Sarkaria
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
