http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: DAKTAR MUDI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/09/1974

BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BHAGWATI, P.N. GOSWAMI, P.K. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH

CITATION:  1974 AIR 2086            1975 SCR  (2)  61  1975 SCC  (3) 301  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1975 SC 550  (13)

ACT: Preventive  detention-Grounds of detention  communicated  to detenu-Right of Court to examine record to see if any  other material influenced the subjective satisfaction of detaining authority.

HEADNOTE: The  petitioner  was  detained  under  the  Maintenance   of Internal Security Act, 1971.  He was served with the grounds for his detention.  In a petition challenging the  detention the District Magistrate filed his counter affidavit  stating that lie had passed the order of detention after being  bona fide  satisfied from the. materials on record, that  it  was necessary  to detain him and that the grounds  furnished  to the  detenu  were  the only grounds on which  he  based  his satisfaction  for making the order, though  other  materials were also placed before him.’ This Court wanted to look into the  record  in  order  to  be  satisfied  that  the.  other materials  were  not  such  as  would  have  in  any  manner influenced   the  District  Magistrate  in  arriving  at   a subjective satisfaction. On  the contention of the respondent that this  Court  ought not to do so when the District Magistrate had stated that he had  arrived  at  the  satisfaction,  only  on  the  grounds mentioned in the detention order, HELD  : There is a possibility that the materials on  record would   disclose.  activities  of  the  detenu  which   were proximate  and  of a serious nature having. nexus  with  the object  of the Act.  If such elements exist then this  Court would,  be justified in taking the view that they must  have influenced  the  subjective, satisfaction of  the  detaining authority.   This  Court  has held  that  where’  there  are several  grounds  and  if one ground is  vague  then  it  is difficult  to say whether the ground which is vague  and  in respect  of  which the detenu could not  make  an  effective representation  did not influence the mind of the  detaining authority  in arriving- at the subjective satisfaction,  and that the detention order would therefore be invalid.  If so,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

it would be equally invalid in a case where there are  other materials  on which the detaining authority could have  been influenced  in arriving at the subjective  satisfaction  but which  had not been mentioned in. the grounds  of  detention nor communicated to the detenu.  Hence, whether the..  other materials  on  record  had any effect on  the  mind  of  the detaining  authority  cannot  be  accepted  solely  on   his statement.  because, that would be accepting the  mere  ipsi dixit of the detaining authority. [62E-64B] It  may  be that the record and bio data of the  detenu  may disclose  materials which have no nexus or proximity or  are vague  or, having regard to their nature or  magnitude,  are not  such  as would have been considered  by  the  detaining authority as essential.  In such a case the validity of  the detention order would not be affected. [64B-C] In the present case, the other materials are remote in  time and have no, nexus with the object of detention, and if they had  been  stated  in the grounds  or  communicated  to  the detenu, the detention would have been held invalid.  The Di- strict Magistrate, therefore, quite rightly. did not rely on those  other’ materials and was justified in  his  assertion that he did not do so. [64H-65B]

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 116 of 1974. (Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, of India) Ravinder Banga, for the petitioner. Sukumar Basu & Co. for the respondent. 62 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. The petitioner challenges his detention under  the Maintenance of Internal Security-.Act,  1971,  as being  illegal.  He was arrested on July 20, 1972, and  sent to  Midnapore Central Jail.  On the same day he  was  served with  the order of detention along with the grounds  of  his detention, which, inter alia, stated thus :               "2. On 26-4-1972 between 14.35 hrs. and  14.45               hrs., you along with your associates  attacked               the  box  wagon of train No.  D/N.  140-78  at               through  yard,  Nimpura near east  cabin  Home               Signal and looted away rice bags from the said               wagon.   Due  to the act of  yours  the  train               suffered detention for about half an hour.               Thus you acted in a manner prejudicial to  the               maintenance of supplies and services essential               to the community.               3.On  28-5-72  at about  18.35  hrs.,  you               alone with your associates stopped goods train               No.  501  Up  at KM 119/15  near  Ayma  P.  S.               Kharagpur  Town,  Midnapore  by  disconnecting               hose pipes and looted away huge quantities  of               brake  blocks  and  pull  rods  used  for  the               maintenance,  construction  and  operation  of               railways.               Due  to this act of yours, the train  suffered               detention for about half an hour.               Thus you acted in a manner prejudicial to  the               maintenance of supplies and services essential               to the community." The  petitioner  was asked to make a representation  to  the State Government against his detention order if he so  chose and  also  to  intimate  if he wanted to  be  heard  by  the Advisory Board in person.  He was further informed that  his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

case will be placed before the Advisory Board within  thirty days from the date of his detention under the order. On October 10, 1972, the State Government placed before  the Advisory Board the grounds on which the detention order  was made  as  also the report made by  the  District  Magistrate under   sub-s.   (3)  of  s.  3  of  the  said   Act.    The representation  of the petitioner was received by the  State Government on October 11, 1972, and after due  consideration it  was rejected by it on October 13, 1912.  It was sent  to the  Advisory  Board on October 24, 1972.   On  October  30, 1972, the Advisory Board, after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner, submitted its report to the State Government stating  that in its opinion there was sufficient cause  for the  detention of the petitioner.  The detention  order  was confirmed by the State Government on November 3, 1972. It  will be seen that the requirements of law regarding  the time schedule have been fully complied with and there is  no defect  in  the detention proceedings on  that  score.   The District Magistrate’s  63 affidavit  stated  that he hall passed the  detention  order after being bona fide satisfied from the materials on record as  stated in the grounds of detention that with a  view  to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner  prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community,  it  was  necessary  to  detain  him  under   the provisions  of  the Maintenance of  Internal  Security  Act, 1971.   He further stated that the grounds furnished to  the detenu  were  the  only  grounds  on  which  he  based   his satisfaction  for  making the said  detention  order  though other  materials  were also placed before him.  In  view  of this statement that "other materials were also placed before him",  but his satisfaction was based merely on the  grounds stated  in  the detention order, we wanted to  be  satisfied that  those  materials were not such as would  have  in  any manner  influenced the District Magistrate in arriving at  a subjective satisfaction. It  was  contended by Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of  the  State Government that this Court ought riot look into. the  record for satisfying itself as to whether the District  Magistrate could  have  arrived at the conclusion when he says  he  has arrived  at that satisfaction only on the grounds  mentioned in the detention order.  We do not think that this would  be a  correct  approach.   Where the liberty of  a  subject  is involved and he has been detained without trial, under a law made pursuant to Art. 22 which provides certain  safeguards, it  is the duty of this Court as the custodian and  sentinel on  the ever vigilant guard of the freedom of an  individual to  scrutinise with due care and anxiety that this  precious right which he has under the Constitution is not in any  way taken  away capriciously, arbitrarily or without  any  legal justification. This Court has held that where grounds are furnished to  the detenu  those grounds must not be vague and must be such  as to enable him to make a proper and effective  representation against  his  detention.  This Court has further  held  that where  there  are  several grounds, even if  one  ground  is vague, then it is difficult to say whetherthe      ground which is vague and_ in respect of which the detenu could not make an effective representation did not influence the  mind of  the  detaining authority in arriving at  his  subjective satisfaction  that the detenu would in future be  likely  to act  in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of  supplies and  services essential to the community. If  the  detention order is held invalid on this count, it would be equally  so

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

in  a  case  where there are other materials  on  which  the detaining  authority could have been influenced in  arriving at  his  subjective  satisfaction  but  which  he  has   not mentioned in the grounds of detention, nor communicated them to  the  detenu.  In such circumstances  whether  the  other materials  on  record  had any effect on  the  mind  of  the detaining  authority  cannot  be  accepted  solely  on   his statement,  because to admit that he alone has such a  right would be to accept that the mere ipsi dixit of the detaining authority  would  be sufficient and cannot be  looked  into. There  is  a possibility that certain  materials  on  record would  disclose that the activities of the detenu are  of  a serious  nature having a nexus with the object of  the  Act, namely, the 64 prevention of prejudicial acts affecting the maintenance  of supplies and services essential to the community, and having proximity  with  the time when the  subjective  satisfaction forming  the basis of the detention order had  been  arrived at.  if  these  elements  exist, then  the  Court  would  be justified  in  taking  the view that these  must,  have  in- fluenced  the  subjective  satisfaction  of  the   detaining authority  and the omission to indicate those  materials  to the  detenu  would  prejudice him  in  making  an  effective representation.  If so, the detention order on that  account would be illegal. It  may  be that the record and bio-data of the  detenu  may disclose materials which have no nexus, or proximity or  are vague or having regard to their nature or magnitude, are not such  as  would  have  been  considered  by  the   detaining authority  as essential for his subjective satisfaction,  in which case, it will have no effect upon the validity of  the detention order.  From this point of view, we have  examined the  bio-data  of  the  detenu but find  that  none  of  the materials  contained in it have any proximity or nexus  with the object of his detention, nor having regard to the nature of  the activities can we say that they have or  could  have influenced  the  subjective satisfaction  of  the  detaining authority.  We find from the history-sheet furnished to  the District   Magistrate  by  the  Superintendent  of   Police, Midnapore  that  apart from the facts which  constitute  the three grounds of detention specified in the detention order, there  are two sets of facts disclosed therein.  One set  is in respect of police case No. 8 dated January 8, 1966, under S.  379 I.P.C. from which it will be found that  the  detenu was concerned in four other cases, three of 1970 and one  of 1966,  but he could not be charge-sheeted in those cases  as the eye witnesses were afraid of deposing to facts  publicly against  the  detenu and his equally  dangerous  associates. The  second set is in respect of his being bound down  under ss.  110/118  Code of Criminal Procedure for six  months  on January  9,  1971.   Even  thereafter  he  was  again  found concerned  in  four  cases in 1971 each one,  under  s.  379 I.P.C.  The Superintendent of Police states that in  respect of the above four cases thus :               "He  has now become a veteran  wagon  breaker.               His  activities are highly prejudicial to  the               maintenance of supplies and services essential               to  the  community.  People of  the  area  are               afraid of deposing facts publicly against  him               and his equally dangerous associates." Thereafter  the Superintendent of Police gives some  of  the recent  instances  of  his  activities  prejudicial  to  the maintenance   of   supplies  and   services   essential   to the.community,  which  alone have been given  in  the  three

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

grounds  mentioned  in the detention order  and  which  were communicated to him. It is apparent that the instances to which we have  referred to  are  remote  in  their  proximity  with  the  object  of detention and would, if they had been stated in the  grounds or communicated’ to the detenu,  65 have  been  considered as remote in their proximity  and  on that ground the detention would have been held invalid.  The District  Magistrate, quite rightly, did not therefore  rely on  those other materials, and we think he was justified  in his assertion in the affidavit that he did not do so. In  the  view  we have taken, the  detention  is  valid  and accordingly we dismiss the petition. V.P.S. Petition dismissed- L25ISupC,1/75 66