http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: JAYANARAYAN SUKUL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/11/1969

BENCH: RAY, A.N. BENCH: RAY, A.N. HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) SHELAT, J.M. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1970 AIR  675            1970 SCR  (3) 225  1970 SCC  (1) 219  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1972 SC 438  (23)  E          1972 SC 665  (14,15)  R          1972 SC 739  (21)  R          1972 SC1623  (6,7)  R          1972 SC1753  (9)  R          1972 SC1915  (6,7)  R          1972 SC2143  (5)  R          1972 SC2215  (3)  R          1972 SC2259  (8)  R          1972 SC2378  (4)  RF         1972 SC2420  (4,57)  R          1972 SC2529  (5)  R          1972 SC2623  (5)  R          1973 SC1179  (3)  R          1975 SC  64  (3)  F          1975 SC 367  (7)  F          1975 SC 775  (3)  R          1979 SC 420  (15)  R          1979 SC1953  (5,14)  R          1980 SC 765  (4)  R          1980 SC 849  (4,5,7)  RF         1981 SC  28  (13)  R          1981 SC1077  (1)  R          1985 SC1082  (10)  D          1988 SC2090  (25)  R          1989 SC1861  (14)  RF         1990 SC 231  (16)  F          1990 SC1455  (11)  RF         1991 SC 574  (12)

ACT: Constitution  of  India,  1950, Art.  22(5)  and  Preventive Detention  Act,  1950,  s. 7-Right of  detenu  to  have  his representation  considered  by  State  Government-Government must  consider  representation before  making  reference  to Advisory  Board and independently of  its  report-Inordinate delay in considering representation violates  constitutional guarantee.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

HEADNOTE: On  June 5, 1969 the District Magistrate  24-Parganas,  West Bengal  made  an  order  under s.  3(2)  of  the  Preventive Detention Act, 1950 for the detention of the petitioner.  On June  7, 1969 the petitioner was, arrested and  served  with the  grounds of detention.  On June 9, 1969 information  was given  to  the  State  Government.  On  June  14,  1969  the Governor approved the order of detention and sent the report under  s.  3(4)  of  the  Act  along  with  the  grounds  of detention, to the Central Government.  On June 23, 1969  the petitioner  made a representation to the  State  Government. On July 1, 1969 the State Government placed the case of  the petitioner together with the said representation before  the Advisory  Board under s. 9 of the Act.  The Board  gave  its opinion  on August 13, 1969 that there was sufficient  cause for the detention of the petitioner.  On August 19, 1969 the State   Government  allegedly  rejected   the   petitioner’s representation.   On August 26, 1969 the Governor  confirmed the  order  of detention.  The petitioner filed  a  petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging his  detention on the ground that the State Government did not consider his representation  of June 23, 1969 with reasonable and  proper expedition.   On  behalf  of the  State  Government  it  was contended that the Government had discharged its duty  inas- much  ;is it rejected the representation  after  considering the  report  of  the  Advisory  Board  and  making  its  own enquiries  through the Superintendent Railway  Police  whose report was a little delayed.  In respect of the said enquiry having  been made an affidavit was filed by the officer  who caused the enquiry to be made. HELD : (i) Broadly stated. four principles, are ,Yard to the representation of detenus First, the appropriate authority is bound to give detenu  to make  a  representation and to consider early  as  possible. [232 B] Secondly,  the  consideration of the representation  of  the detenu by the appropriate authority is entirely  independent of   any  action  by  the  Advisory  Board   including   the consideration  of  the representation of the detenu  by  the Advisory Board. [232 C] Thirdly.  there  should not be any delay in  the  matter  of consideration.   Though  no hard and fast rule can  be  laid down  as  to the measure of time taken  by  the  appropriate authority  for consideration, it has to be  remembered  that the  Government has to be vigilant in the governance of  the citizens.   The fundamental right of the detenu to have  his representation 226 considered  by the appropriate Government would be  rendered meaningless if the Government does not deal with the  matter expeditiously  but  at its own sweet will  and  convenience. [232 C-D] Fourthly  the  appropriate  Government is  to  exercise  its opinion  and judgment on the representation  before  sending the  case  along  with the detenu’s  representation  to  the Advisory Board.  If the appropriate Government will  release the  detenu the Government will not send the matter  to  the Advisory Board.  If however the Government will not  release the detenu the Government will, send the case along with the detenu’s   representation   to  the  Advisory   Board.    If thereafter  the Advisory Board will ,express an  opinion  in favour of release of the detenu the Government will  release the detenu.  If the Advisory Board will express any  opinion against  the release of the detenu the Government may  still

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

exercise the power to release the detenu. [232 D-F] Sk.   Abdul Karim & Ors. v. State of West Bengal,  [19691  3 S.C.R, 479; Pankaj Kumar Chakrabarty & Ors. v. State of West Bengal,  [1970] 1 S.C.R. 543 -and Khairul Haque v. State  of West Bengal, W.P. No. 246/69 dated 10-9-69, applied. Shyamal  Chakraborty  v. Commissioner  of  Police,  Calcutta [1970] 1 S.C.R. 762 and Durga Show and Ors. case, W.P.  Nos. 198, 205 & 206/69 dated 2-9-69, referred to. (ii) In the present case the State of West Bengal was guilty of  infraction of the constitutional provisions not only  by inordinate delay of the consideration of the  representation but  also  by putting off the consideration till  after  the receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board.  There was  no explanation  for this inordinate delay.  The  Superintendent who  made  the enquiry did not -affirm  an  affidavit.   The State  had  given no information as to why this  long  delay occurred.   Because the personal liberty of the citizen  was under  consideration the State Government should have  given utmost information to the court.  The inescapable conclusion ’in  the  present case was that  the  appropriate  authority failed   to  discharge  its  constitutional  obligation   by inactivity  and lack of independent judgment.  The  petition must therefore be allowed. [232 F-G]

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 258 of 1969. Petition  under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India  for  a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. S.   Chakravarty, for the petitioner. S.   P. Mitra, G. S. Chatterjee for Sukumar Basu, for the respondent.                            ORDER We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well  as counsel for the, State of West Bengal.  In our opinion,  the detention  of  the, detenu suffers from great  infirmity  as pointed out by this Court in Sk.  Abdul karim and others  v. The  State  of West Bengal (Writ Petition No.  327  of  1968 decided on January 31, 1969).  The petitioner is ordered  to be  released forthwith.  We shall give our reasons  for  the release later. 227 Ray, J. The petitioner made an application under Article  32 of the Constitution requiring the respondent to -show  cause as to why the petitioner should not be released. At  the  conclusion of the hearing of this  petition  on  15 October, 1969 we directed the release of the petitioner -and stated  that  the reasons would be given later on.   We  are stating our reasons for the order. ’On 5 June, 1969 the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas,  West Bengal  made an order under section 3(2) of  the  Preventive Detention  Act,  1950 (hereinafter called the Act)  for  the detention of the petitioner.  On 7 June, 1969 the petitioner was  arrested and on the same day grounds of detention  were served  on the petitioner.  On 9 June, 1969 information  was given  to  the  State  Government.  On  14  June,  1969  the Governor  was pleased to approve the order of detention  and on the same day the Governor sent the report to the  Central Government  under section 3(4) of the Act together with  the grounds of detention.  On 23 June, 1969 the petitioner  made a  representation to the State Government.  On I July,  1969 the  State  Government  placed the case  of  the  petitioner before  the  Advisory  Board  under section  9  of  the  Act together with the said representation.  On 13 August,  1969,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

the  Advisory  Board after consideration  of  the  materials placed  before-  it  was  of  the  opinion  that  there  was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner.. On 19 August,  1969  the  State  Government  is  alleged  to  have rejected the petitioner’s representation.  By an order dated 26  August,  1969 the Governor was pleased  to  confirm  the order of detention of the petitioner. The  only  contention on behalf of the petitioner  was  that though  the petitioner made the representation on  23  June, 1969 the Government did not consider the said representation with reasonable and proper expedition. On behalf of the State of West Bengal it was contended first that  the  matter was referred to the Advisory  Board  along with   the   petitioner’s  representation  and   the   State Government considered the report of the Advisory Board, and, secondly, the affidavit of Rathindra Nath Sen Gupta affirmed on  19  September, 1969 will show that enquiries  were  made after  the  petitioner had made the representation  and  the Government therefore considered the representation. The  affidavit  of Rathindra Nath.  Sen Gupta is  of  little value.   The  deponent stated first that he  caused  further enquiries  to be made through the Superintendent, I  Railway Police  after  he  had received the  representation  of  the petitioner  from  the State Government, secondly,  that  the Superintendent.  Railway Police took a little time to submit a report, thirdly, the deponent after being 228 satisfied  about  anti-social activities of  the  petitioner informed  the  State Government on 12 August,  1969  to  the effect  that  he  did  not  recommend  the  release  of  the petitioner,  and, fourthly, that the State Government on  19 August,  1969  rejected  the  petitioner’s   representation. There  is  no  affidavit by the  Superintendent  of  Po1ice, Sealdah who is alleged to have made further enquiries.   One will look in vain into the affidavit of the deponent to find out  as to when the deponent entrusted the said  enquiry  to the  Superintendent, Railway Police and further as  to  what time  was  taken  for  enquiry and  report.   The  Court  is entitled to know the time and the steps taken along with the nature of the enquiry.  The importance of the matter lies in the  fact that it is a case of preventive detention and  the personal liberty of a citizen is under consideration of  the State  Government.   The State.  Government  is,  therefore, bound to give the utmost information to this Court. The  Preventive Detention Act confers powers on the  Central Government  or  the State Government to make  an  order  for detention of a person.  The order of detention can be passed by  the  District  Magistrate  or  the  Additional  District Magistrate  or the Commissioner of Police or the  Collector. When  an  order is made by any ’of these officers  he  shall forthwith  report the fact to the State Government to  which he  is  subordinate together with the grounds  and  no  such order shall remain in force for more than 12 days after  the making  of  the  order unless it is approved  by  the  State Government.  The State Government shall, as soon as may  be, report the fact to the Central Government.  Under section  7 of the Act grounds of order of detention are to be disclosed to  the persons affected by the order not later than 5  days from  the date of detention and the Act further requires  to afford  the  person  affected  by  the  order  the  earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order  to the appropriate Government.  In the present petition, we are concerned with the scope and intent of section 7 of the  Act in regard to the representation made by the petitioner. Section  8 of the Act contemplates constitution of  Advisory

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

Boards.   Section  9  requires  the  appropriate  Government within  30  days  from the date of detention  to  place  the grounds and the representation, if any, before the  Advisory Board.   The Advisory Board under section 10 is to  consider the  materials  and if the Board considers it  essential  to hear the person concerned who desires to be heard, the Board will  hear the person and make the report.  Section I  I  of the Act states that the Government may confirm the detention order if the Advisory Board gives an opinion to that effect. Under section 13 of the Act the State Government may  revoke an  order passed by its officers and the Central  Government may revoke an order made by the State Government. 229 Counsel on behalf of the State of West Bengal contended that the matter was referred to the Advisory Board along with the representation  of  the detenu dated 23 June, 1969  and  the State   Government   on  19  August,   1969   rejected   the representation  of  the petitioner and thus  discharged  its duty.   This contention has to be examined in the  light  of Article  22  of the Constitution and the provisions  of  the Act. There  have been five recent decisions of this Court on  the provisions  of this Act particularly in regard to the  right of  the detenu to have his representation considered by  the appropriate Government and the obligation of the appropriate Government  in that behalf.  In Sk.  Abdul Karim & Ors.  v., The  State  of  West  Bengal(’) this  Court  held  that  the appropriate  Government could not be said to  discharge  the obligation  merely by forwarding the representation  of  the detenu   to   the  Advisory  Board.   Article  22   of   the Constitution  guarantees  the right of a detenu  to  have  a proper   consideration   of  the   representation   by   the appropriate authority. In the case of Pankaj Kumar Chakravarty & Ors. v. The  State of  West  Bengal(’)  this Court put  in  the  forefront  the distinction between the twin obligations of the  appropriate authority   under  sections  7  and  8  of  the  Act.    The appropriate Government is to consider the representation  of the  detenu  inasmuch  as section 7 of  the  Act  speaks  of affording  the detenu the earliest opportunity of  making  a representation   against  the  order  of   detention.    The obligation  of  the appropriate authority  to  consider  the representation  of the detenu under section 7 of the Act  is entirely independent of any action of the Advisory Board  or any consideration by the said Board of the representation of the detenu.  In the case of Pankaj Kumar Chakrabarty(2) this Court  observed  : "The peremptory language in clause  5  of Article  22  of the Constitution and section 7  of  the  Act would  not  have  been necessary if the Board  and  not  the Government had to consider the representation". There  is another reason why the appropriate  Government  is required  to consider on its own the representation  of  the detenu.   If the consideration of the representation of  the detenu  by the Board sufficed the  constitutional  guarantee section  7  of the Act would be robbed of its  content.   In Pankai Kumar Chakrabarty’s case(") this Court emphasised the -aspect  that  the  representation  was  addressed  to   the Government and not directly to the Advisory Board and it was for  the  reason  that  the  appropriate  authority  was  to exercise  its  opinion and judgment in  an  independent  and honest manner. (1)  (19691 3 S.C R. 479. (2)  [1970] 1 S.C.R.543. 230 It, therefore, follows that the appropriate authority is  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

consider  the representation of the detenu  uninfluenced  by any opinion or consideration of the Advisory Board.  In  the case of Khairul Haque v. State of West Bengal (1) this Court observed that "it is’ implicit in the language of Article 22 that the appropriate Government, while discharging its  duty to consider the representation cannot depend upon the  views of the Board on such representation".  The logic behind this proposition  is  that  the  Government  should   immediately consider the representation of the detenu before sending the matter  to the Advisory Board and further that  such  action will then have the real flavour of independent judgment. In  the case of Shyamal Chakraborty v. The  Commissioner  of Police,  Calcutta  & Anr. ( 2 ) one of the  contentions  was that  the detenu’s representation was not considered by  the Government.   There, the facts were these.  The  detenu  was arrested  on  13  November, 1968.  On 6  January,  1969  the Governor was pleased to confirm the order of detention after the  Advisory  Board  had  given  opinion  that  there   was sufficient  cause  for  detention of  the  petitioner.   The detenu  thereafter  on  13  or  16  January,  1969  made   a representation.  On I April, 1969 the Commissioner of Police informed  the Home Department that he did not recommend  the release  of  the petitioner.  On 28 March, 1969  notice  was issued under Article. 32 of the Constitution to the  Commis- sioner  of Police and to the State Government to show  cause why  the  petitioner should not be set at  liberty.   It  is curious  that even when Shayamal’s case ( 2 ) was  heard  in this  Court  on  4 August 1969  the  representation  of  the petitioner could not be traced.  This, Court did not  accept the  contention of the petitioner that there was  any-breach of  section 7 of the Act on consideration of the facts  that the  detenu  did not choose to make  a  representation  till after  the  Advisory  Board had dealt with  the  matter  and further  that  the State Government was in  the  process  of dealing with the representation and the detenu did not state that  the  grounds  of detention  were  false.   This  Court concluded  in  the  case of Shyamal Chakraborty  (  2  )  by stating  that  the  State Government  would  deal  with  the representation and pass a suitable order. When  the  present Writ Petition came up for hearing  on  30 September, 1969 before the Bench consisting of Sikri, Mitter and  Reddy, JJ., the matter was referred for decision  by  a larger  Bench to consider as to what would- be the  question of  period within which the Government could dispose of  the representation  -of  the detenu because -it  was  felt  that there  was  an  apparent conflict between  the  cases  ,  of Shyamal Chakraborty ( 2 ) and Khairul Haque (1). (1)  W.P. No. 246 of 1969 decided on 10-9-1969. (2)  [1970] 1 S.C.R. 762. In view of the fact that there is a fundamental right of the detenu  to  have  the  representation  considered  by   the, appropriate   Government   such  right  will   be   rendered meaningless if the Government will not deal with the  matter expeditiously  but at its own will and convenience.  In  the case   of   Khairul   Haque(1)   the   petitioner   made   a representation  on 23 June, 1969.  The Advisory  Board  made its  report  on I I August, 1969.  On 12 August,  1969,  the Governor  confirmed the order of detention. - On 29  August, 1969 the Governor rejected the petitioner’s  representation. The  delay was not explained in the case.  The  disposal  of the  representation by the Government after the  receipt  of the Report of the Advisory Board was found by this Court  to raise  a doubt there whether the Government  considered  the representation  in an independent manner.  This  independent consideration  by the appropriate Government is implicit  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

Article 22 of the Constitution. In  the case of Durga Show and Ors ( 2 )  three  petitioners were set at liberty.  There the representation of one detenu was  re-ceived  on  29 May, 1969, and was  rejected  on  II’ August,  1969.   In another case the representation  of  the detenu was receiver on 18 June. 1969 and was rejected by the Government  on  16  August, 1969.  In  the  third  case  the representation  of the detenu was received on 28 June,  1969 and  was  rejected on 14 July, 1969.  In the case  of  Durga Show  and Ors.(2) the opinion of this Court in the  case  of Sk.   Abdul karim(3) was re-stated by emphasising the  legal obligation  of  the appropriate Government to  consider  the representation  cf the detenu "as soon as it is received  by it". It  is  established  beyond any measure  of  doubt-that  the appropriate    authority   is   bound   to   consider    the representation  of  the detenu as early  as  possible.   The appropriate  Government  itself  is bound  to  consider  the representation as expeditiously as possible.  The reason for immediate consideration of the representation is too obvious to  be  stressed.  The personal liberty of a  person  is  at stake.  Any, delay would not only be an irresponsible act on the   part   of   the   appropriate   authority   but   also unconstitutional  because  the  Constitution  enshrines  the fundamental  right  of a detenu to have  his  representation considered  and it is imperative that when the liberty of  a person -is in peril immediate action should be taken by  the relevant authorities. No definite time can be laid down within which a representa- tion  of a detenu should be dealt with save and except  that it  is  a  constitutional  right of  a  detenu  to,have  his representation considered as expeditiously as possible.   It will depend upon the facts (1)  W.Ps. Nos. 246 f 1969 decided on 10-9-1969. (2)  W.Ps.  Nos.  198, 205 and 206 of 1969 decided  on  2-9- 1969. (3)  (1969] 3 S. C. R. 479 232 and  circumstances  of  each case  whether  the  appropriate Government  has  disposed of the case  as  expeditiously  as possible for otherwise in words of Shelat, J. who spoke  for this  Court in the case of Khairul Haque(1) "it  is  obvious that  the obligation to furnish the earliest opportunity  to make a representation loses both its purpose and meaning. Broadly stated, four principles are to be followed in regard to  representation  of  detenus.   First,  the   appropriate authority  is bound to give an opportunity to the detenu  to make a representation and to consider the representation  of the   detenu   as   early  as   possible.    Secondly,   the consideration  of  the representation of the detenu  by  the appropriate authority is entirely independent of any  action by  the  Advisory Board including the consideration  of  the representation   of  the  detenu  by  the  Advisory   Board. Thirdly,  there  should not be any delay in  the  matter  of consideration.  It in true that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the measure of time taken by the appropriate authority for consideration but it has to be remembered that the  Government has to be vigilant in the governance of  the citizens.   A citizen’s right raises a correlative  duty  of the  State.   Fourthly, ’the appropriate  Government  is  to exercise  its  opinion and judgment  on  the  representation before   sending   the   case  along   with   the   detenu’s representation  to the Advisory Board.  If  the  appropriate Government  will release the detenu the Government will  not send  the  matter  to the Advisory Board.   If  however  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

Government  will not release the detenu the Government  will send the case along with the detenu’S representation to  the Advisory  Board.   If  thereafter the  Advisory  Board  will express  an opinion in favour of release of the  detenu  the Government  will release the detenu.  If the Advisory  Board will  express any opinion against the release of the  detenu the  Government may still exercise the power to release  the detenu. In  the present case, the State of West Bengal is guilty  of infraction  of  the  constitutional provision  not  only  by inordinate delay of the consideration of the  representation but  also  by putting off the consideration till  after  the receipt  of the opinion of the Advisory Board.  As  we  have already observed there is no explanation for this inordinate delay.   The  Superintendent who made the  enquiry  did  not affirm an affidavit.  The State has given no information  as to why this long delay occurred.  The inescapable conclusion in the present case is that the appropriate authority failed to  discharge its constitutional, obligation  by  inactivity and lack of independent judgment. The petition is, therefore, allowed.  The petitioner is  set at liberty. G.C.                       Petition allowed. (1)  W.P. No. 246 of 1969 decided on 10-9-1969.                             233