http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: GOPALANACHARI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/11/1980

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. PATHAK, R.S. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR  674            1981 SCR  (1)1271

ACT:      Code of  Criminal Procedure-Section  110-Scope of-Court must insist on specificity or facts.

HEADNOTE:      In a  letter addressed  to one  of the  Judges of  this Court (V.  R. Krishna  Iyer, J.)  the petitioner  complained that he  had been  illegally detained under section 110, Cr. P. C.  In response to this Court’s notice the Superintendent of Sub-Jail  stated that  the petitioner  was "a  well known habitual prisoner"  of the  Kerala State  and was  known  as "thief Gopalan".      In his reply the detenu stated that being unable to see or hear  because of  his extreme  old age of 71 years he was staying in  his house in his native place and that one night a policeman  took him  from his house in a van to the police station saying that he had to inquire something from him and after putting  him in  the lock  up for 10 days produced him before the  Court as  a  person  having  been  arrested  the previous night.  He further  stated that  the charge against him was that on the night patrol one night a policeman found him hiding  in a  verandah of a shop and that on being asked his name and address he gave one name first and another name a little  later and that on inquiry it was found that he was an ex-criminal not to be let free.      Allowing the petition. . ^      HELD: In  the interests  of justice proceedings against the petitioner  must  be  dropped.  Section  110  cannot  be permitted to  pick up  the homeless  and the have-nots as it did under British subjection because today to be poor is not a crime in this country. [1274F]      Article 21 insists that no man shall be deprived of his life or  personal liberty  except according to the procedure established by  law. In  Maneka Gandhi  v.  Union  of  India [1978] 1  SCC 248  this Court in clearest terms strengthened the rule  of law vis-a-vis the personal liberty by insisting on the  procedure contemplated  by Art. 21 having to be fair and reasonable not vagarious, vague and arbitrary. [1274G]      The constitutional  survival of  section 110 depends on its obedience  to Art.  21.  Words  of  wide  import,  vague amplitude and far too generalised to be safe in the hands of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

the Police  cannot be  constitutionalised in  the context of Art. 21  unless read  down to  be as  a fair  and reasonable legislation with  reverence for  human rights.  A glance  at section 110  shows that  only a  narrow signification can be attached to the words in clauses (a) to (g) namely "by habit a  robber",  "by  habit  a  receiver  of  stolen  property", "habitually  protects   or  harbours  thieves",  "habitually commits or  attempts to commit or abets the commission of .. " "is  so desperate  and dangerous as to render his being at large  without   security  hazardous   to  the   community’. Expressions like  these cannot be flung in the face of a man with  laxity   of  semantics.   The  Court  must  insist  on specificity of facts and be satisfied that one swallow 1272 does not  make a  summer and  a consistent course of conduct convincing enough  to draw  the rigorous  inference that  by confirmed habit  which  is  second  nature  -  the  counter- petitioner is sure to commit the offences mentioned if he is not kept  captive. Preventive sections privative of freedom, if incautiously  proved by  indolent judicial processes, may do deeper  injury. They will have the effect of detention of one who  has not  been held guilty of a crime and carry with it the judicial imprimatur, to boot. To call a man dangerous is itself  dangerous; to  call a man desperate is to affix a desperate adjective  to stigmatise  a person as hazardous to the community  is itself a judicial hazard unless compulsive testimony carrying  credence is  abundantly available. [1275 G-H, 1276 E-G]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 350 of 1980.            (Under Article 32 of the Constitution)      M. M.  Abdul Khoder,  V. M.  Tarkunde and  EMS Enam for the. Petitioner.      V. J. Francis for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA  IYER,   J.-The  lament   of  the   petitioner, Gopalanachari, a  septuagenarian  languishing  in  a  Kerala prison, is  that in  his case the law has become lawless and justice has  fallen as  the first  casualty, a lot shared by several other  prison-mates. He  wrote a letter dated nil to one of us (Krishna Iyer, J) complaining of illegal detention under s.  110 Criminal  Procedure Code (for short, the Code) where upon  the jurisdiction  of this  Court was invoked and the following order was made:           Shri M. M. Abdul Kader Senior Advocate with Mr. E.      M. Sardul  Enarn, Advocate-on-Record  will be appointed      as amicus curiae for the petitioner.           Issue Show  Cause Notice  to the  respondent state      with a direction that the State shall furnish the total      number of  prisoners in  the Sub-Jail Kottayam, who are      now kept  in custody  under s.  110 Cr.  P. C. and give      further particulars  as to  how long  they have been in      prison on  this score  and whether  the hearing  of the      cases  under   s.  110   Cr.  P.   C.  is   over.   The      Superintendent of  the Jail  will further  furnish  the      number of  prisoners in  prison who  are above  seventy      years old and below 25 years.           Copy of  the Notice  will be  served  on  advocate      amicus curiae  as  well  as  on  Shri  V.  J.  Francis,      Advocate for  the State.  order will  also be issued to      the Superintendent of the Jail apart from the State.           Post the matter on 2nd April, 1980.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

1273      Even here  we may  state that  Shri M.  M.  AbdulKader, Senior   Advocate  assisted  by  Shri  E.  M.  Sadrul  Enam, Advocate-on-Record, has  rendered help  as amicus curiae and enabled the court to set human rights in perspective in a s. 110 situation. Shri Tarkunde also, as intervener, has helped the court  which, incidentally  strengthens the  current  of participative justice  since leading  members of the bar and public organisations  in the  field taking part in the court process in  the shape  of assistance in the cause of justice lends reality to the democracy of judicial remedies.      The  State,  in  response  to  the  notice,  put  in  a statement that in the Sub Jail at Kottayam there are as many as  six  prisoners  detained  under  s.  110  cf  the  Code. Apparently,  they  have  been  suffering  incarceration  for several months,  the petitioner  himself having been in Jail iron 23-2-1980.  It is added by the Superintendent, Sub Jail that the  petitioner "is well-known habitual prisoner of the Kerala State.. he is known as ’Kallan Gopalan’ " i.e., thief Gopalan.  In   pathetic  contrast   to   this   stigmatising generalisation  that   the  petitioner   is   a   well-known ’habitual’ we  find the  averment in  the  petition  of  the detainee that  he has  been falsely  implicated without  any regard for  human rights.  His averments which have not been specifically contested may well be extracted:           The  case  charged  against  me  by  the  Kottayam      Arpukkara .  Police in  the Ettumanur Court is on night      patrol, found  hiding in  the varanda  of  a  shop,  on      asking the  name and  address:  answered  the  name  as      Shankunni of  Pala; on  again questioning  answered  as      Krishnan Kutty of Pankunnari. and again on questioning,      arrested on  doubt as  a "K. D." on the Pathanam Thitta      Police Station  and on  enquiry it  is found  that  the      person is  an ex-criminal  and not  to be free; and for      that, to  obtain bail for two years, this is the charge      against the  person, submitted by the Police before the      court.           I  am   71  years   old.  My   native   place   is      Pathanamthitta of Kottayam District. While I was living      in my  house having  loss of eyesight and hearing power      due to  old age,  a Police man known to me earlier, saw      me on  a road  near my  house, saying  that he  has  to      enquire something,  taken me  in  a  van  to  Arpukkara      Police Station, after putting me in the lock-up for ten      days produced  me before  the Court  after  making  the      record as  having arrested  me on the previous night of      producing me before the Court.           But, it  is such  a  position  that  if  the  bail      alongwith the  Bond as aforesaid is not furnished for a      period of  two years,  I have to be inside the Jail for      the said period. 1274           I submit  before your Honour that I have much pain      and agony  that without  considering that I am 71 years      old and  have difficulties  due to  that,  and  without      seeing or  giving remedy keeping me in the jail on such      a fabricated case. There is  no indication  even in the statement put in by the Superintendent that  there has  been  any  conviction  by  a criminal courts  as yet.  The cases  are pending, apparently without any  sense of urgency and oblivious to the fact that for several  months the  petitioner has been deprived of his personal liberty even at the advanced age of 70.      If men can be whisked away by the Police and imprisoned for long  months and  the court  can keep  the cases pending

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

without thought  to the  fact that  an old  man is  lying in cellular confinement without hope of his case being disposed of, Art.  21, read with Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution, remain symbolic  and scriptural rather than a shield against unjust deprivation.  Law is  not a  mascot but a defender of the faith.  Surely, if law behaves lawlessly, social justice becomes a judicial hoax.      A closer  look at  s. 110 of the Code in the setting of peril to  personal liberty  thus becomes a necessity in this case. Counsel  for the  State, Shri  Francis, amicus  curiae Shri Abdul  Kader and  Senior Advocate Shri Tarkunde, agreed that unless the preventive power under s. 110 were prevented from pervasive  misuse by  zealous  judicial  vigilance  and interpretative strictness;  many a poor man, maybe cast into prison by  sticking the label of ’habitual’ or by using such frightening  expressions  as  ’desperate’,  ’dangerous’  and ’hazardous to the community’. Law is what the law does, even as freedom  is what freedom does. Going by that test, s. 110 cannot be  permitted in  our free  Republic to  pick up  the homeless and  the have-nots  as it  did when  under  British subjection because  to-day to be poor is not a crime in this country. George Bernard Shaw, though ignorant of s. 110, did sardonically comment  that "the  greatest of  evils and  the worst of crimes is poverty".      Article 21 insists that no man shall be deprived of his life or  personal liberty  except according to the procedure established by  law. In  Maneka Gandhi case(l) this Court in clearest terms  strengthened the  rule  of  law  vis  a  vis personal liberty  by insisting on the procedure contemplated by Art.  21 having to be fair and reasonable, not vagarious, vague and arbitrary: -           The principle  of reasonableness, which legally as      well as  philosophically, is  an essential  element  of      equality or non- 1275      arbitrariness  pervades  Article  14  like  a  brooding      omnipresence and  the procedure contemplated by Article      21 must  answer the  test of reasonableness in order to      be in conformity with Article 14. It must be "right and      just  and   fair"  and   not  arbitrary,   fanciful  or      oppressive; otherwise,  it would be no procedure at all      and  the   requirement  of  Article  21  would  not  be      satisfied.(l)           The principles  and procedures  are to  be applied      which,  in   .  any  particular  situation  or  set  of      circumstances, are  right and  just and  fair.  Natural      justice, it  has been  said, is  only "fair  play .  in      action". Nor do we wait for directions from Parliament.      The . common law has abundant riches; there may we find      what Byles, J., called "the justice of the common law".           Procedural  safeguards   are   the   indispensable      essence of  liberty. In  fact, the  history of personal      liberty is largely the history of procedural safeguards      and right  to a  hearing has  a  human-right  ring.  In      India, because  of poverty  and illiteracy,  the people      are  unable   to  protect   and  defend  their  rights;      observance of  fundamental rights  is not  regarded  as      good politics  and their transgression as bad politics.      I sometimes  pensively reflect  that people’s  militant      awareness   of   rights   and   duties   is   a   surer      constitutional assurance  of governmental  respect  and      response than the sound and fury of the ’question hour’      and the slow and unsure delivery of court writ.....           To sum  up, ’procedure’  in Article 21 means fair,      not formal  procedure. ’Law’ is reasonable law, not any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

    enacted piece.  As Article  22 specifically  spells out      the procedural  safeguards for  preventive and punitive      detention, a  law providing  for such detentions should      conform to  Article 22. It has been rightly pointed out      that for other rights forming part of personal liberty,      the procedural  safeguards enshrined  in Article 21 arc      available. The constitutional  survival of  s. 110 certainly depends on its obedience to Art. 21, as this Court has expounded. Words of wide  import, vague  amplitude and far too generalised to be  safe   in  the   hands   of   the   Police   cannot   be constitutionalised in  the context  of Art.  21 unless  read down to  be  as  a  fair  and  reasonable  legislation  with reverence for  human rights.  A glance  at s. 110 shows that only a  narrow signification can be attached to the words in clauses (a)  to (g),  "by habit  a robber....",  "by habit a receiver of stolen property....", 1276 "habitually protects  or harbours  thieve....",  "habitually commits or  attempts to  commit or  abets the  commission of .... ",  "is so  desperate and  dangerous as  to render  his being at large without security hazardous to the community". These expressions,  when they  become part of the preventive chapter with  potential for  deprivation of a man’s personal freedom upto a period of three years, must be scrutinised by the court  closely and  anxiously. The poor are picked up or brought up,  habitual witnesses swear away their freedom and courts ritualistically  commit them to prison and Art. 21 is for them  a freedom  under total eclipse in practice. Courts are guardians of human rights. The common man looks upon the trial court  as the  protector. The poor and the illiterate, who have  hardly the  capability to  defend themselves,  are nevertheless  not   ’non-persons’,  the  trial  judges  must remember, This  Court in Hoskot’s case has laid down the law that a  person in  prison shall  be given  legal aid  at the expense of  the State  by the  court assigning  counsel.  In cases under  s. 110  of the  Code, the  exercise is often an idle ritual  deprived of reality although a man’s liberty is at stake. We direct the trial magistrates to discharge their duties,  when   trying  cases  under  s.  11(),  with  great responsibility and  whenever  the  counter-petitioner  is  a prisoner give  him the facility of being defended by counsel now that  Art. 21 has been reinforced by Art. 39A. Otherwise the order to bind over will be bad and void. We have not the slightest  doubt   that   expressions   like   "by   habit", "habitual", "desperate",  "dangerous", "hazardous" cannot be flung in  the face  of a  man with  laxity of semantics. The Court must  insist on  specificity of facts and be satisfied that one  swallow does  not make  a summer  and a consistent course of  conduct convincing  enough to  draw the  rigorous inference - that by confirmed habit, which is second nature, the counter-petitioner  . is  sure to  commit  the  offences mentioned if  he is  not kept  captive. Preventive  sections privative of  freedom, if  incautiously proved  by  indolent judicial processes, may do deeper injury. They will have the effect of detention of one who has not been held guilty of a crime and carry with it the judicial imprimatur, to boot. To call a  man dangerous  is itself  dangerous; to  call a  man desperate is  to affix a desperate adjective to stigmatise a person as  hazardous to  the community  is itself a judicial hazard unless  compulsive  testimony  carrying  credence  is abundantly available.  A sociologist may pardonably take the view that  it is  the poor  man, the  man without  political clout the  person without  economic stamina, who in practice gets caught  in . the coils of s. 110 of the Code, although,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

we as  court, cannot  subscribe to  any such  proposition on mere assertion without copious 1277 substantiation. Even  so, the  court cannot  be unmindful of social   realities and  be careful  to require  strict proof when personal  liberty may  possibly be the casuality. After all, the  judicial process must not fail functionally as the protector of personal liberty.      Indeed, several  commissions, spread  over decades, and even the  Central Law  Commission, in  some of  its reports, disclosed  the  presence  in  our  midst  of  many  habitual economic offenders  and  chronic  corporate  Criminals  who, perhaps, may  not be  on the wanted list of the Police under s. 110  of the  Code although their dangerous activities may prove a hazard to the health and wealth of nation. Referring to a  similar situation  in American Society, Ralph Nader in his introduction  to a  well documented book titled "America Inc." has  observed:           In no clearer fashion has the corporation held the      law at  bay than  in the  latter’s paralysis toward the      corporate crime  wave. Crime  statistics almost  wholly      ignore corporate or business crime; there is no list of      the ten  most wanted  corporations; the  law afford  no      means of  regularly collecting data on corporate crime;      and  much   corporate  criminal   behaviour  (such   as      pollution)  has  not  been  made  a  crime  because  of      corporate opposition.  For example, willful and knowing      violations of  auto, tire,  radiation, and gas pipeline      safety standards  are not  considered crimes  under the      relevant statutes  even if  lives are lost as a result.      The description of an array of corporate crimes in this      forthright  book  reveals  a  legal  process  requiring      courage, not  routine duty, by officials to enforce the      laws against  such out  rages. The  law  is  much  more      comfortable sentencing  a telephone  coin box ’thief to      five years  than sentencing  a billion  - dollar price-      fixing  executive   to  six   weeks  in  jail.  In  one      recounting after  another,  the  authors  pile  up  the      evidence towards  one searing conclusion-that corporate      economic, product, and environmental crimes dwarf other      crimes in  damage to  health, safety  and property,  in      confiscation of  theft of other people’s monies, and in      control of  the agencies  which arc  supposed to . stop      this crime  and fraud.  And it  all goes  on year after      year by blue-chip corporate recidivists.           Why ?  It is  easy to  answer-"power". But that is      the beginning, not the end, of understanding.(l) True,  American   conditions  are   different  from   Indian conditions and  these observations  may not  have  necessary application to  our societal  situation. The  point of Ralph Nader has, however, some relevance. 1278      Let us  allay misunderstandings.  We are  clear in  our mind that prevention is better than cure, in criminal law as in medicines  especially when there is judicial supervision. Society cannot be left at the mercy of predators and bandits who, like  wild beasts,  prey upon the weak and the innocent and become a menace to peace and security of society.      But personal  liberty is a prized value and that is why we have  insisted not  merely upon  the Police  having to be careful before marching poor people into court under s.  but the Court  itself having to be gravely concerned about using preventive  provisions  against  helpless  persons,  not  on formal testimony  readily  produced  to  order  as  we  have noticed in  a recent  case, but  on convincing  testimony of

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

clear and present danger to society.      In the  present case,  the petitioner has been too long in prison,  and we  take it  that  no  circumstances  placed before us  justify keeping  him longer in custody. The trial magistrate will,  having regard  to the observations we have made, drop  the proceedings in the interests of justice. The other prisoner  above 70 years also should be enlarged right away  (Kutty  Thankappan,  U.T.  No.  665).  We  expect  any Government which  has any regard for human rights not to use s. 110  of the  Code, torturesome  fashion, against the weak and the  poor merely  because they  belong to the ’have-not’ class and  can be  easily apprehended  as ’habitual’ this or that or dangerous or desperate. We draw the attention of the State Government  to the  likely misuse  of  the  preventive provisions and  expect it  to issue suitable instructions to the Police  minions so  that the  law will be legitimated by going into  action where  it must  strike and  by being kept sheathed where  there is no need for indiscriminate display. With these  observations,   we direct  the  release  of  the petitioner and  Kutty Thankappan, U.T. No. 665 on their. Own bonds until  formal orders  are passed by the trial court in the regular criminal proceedings under s. 110 of the Code. P.B.R.                                     Petition allowed. 1279