http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: SHAIK HANIF, GUDMA MAJHI & KAMAL SAHA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/02/1974

BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

CITATION:  1974 AIR  679            1974 SCR  (3) 258  1974 SCC  (1) 637  CITATOR INFO :  R          1974 SC 806  (21)  R          1974 SC 816  (3)  D          1974 SC 832  (3,6,8)  F          1974 SC 889  (3)  F          1974 SC 895  (3)  R          1974 SC 917  (14)  F          1974 SC1739  (4)  D          1974 SC1814  (6)  R          1974 SC2120  (6)  RF         1974 SC2240  (1)  D          1974 SC2337  (15)  F          1975 SC 255  (1)  R          1975 SC1508  (7)  RF         1976 SC1207  (560)  RF         1980 SC1983  (4)  R          1984 SC 444  (26)  R          1990 SC1361  (12)  R          1990 SC1455  (12)  F          1992 SC 687  (11)

ACT: Maintenance  of Internal Security Act--If  counter-affidavit to  be  sworn by the District Magistrate himself  and  under what  circumstances--"Veteran copper wire  stealer"--meaning of.

HEADNOTE: Since the matters are similar, the facts of W.P. No. 1679 of 1973 are as follows: The petitioner was arrested u/s. 3, sub section (1) and  (2) of  the  Maintenance of Internal Security  Act,  1971.   The grounds  of detention were that the petitioner,  on  3-7-72, alongwith  his  associates  kept  concealed  20  bundles  of Telegraph copper wire in his court-yard under ground with  a view  to dispose the same at an opportune moment.  The  said telegraph wire were recovered on 3-7-72 on the basis of  the confession  made  by his associates.   The  petitioner  was, therefore,  arrested  because  he was  acting  in  a  manner prejudicial  to  the maintenance of  supplies  and  services essential to the community. The detention order was challenged on various grounds  :-(i) That  the counter-affidavit on behalf of the State  of  West

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

Bengal  was  sworn by the Deputy Secretary and  not  by  the District  Magistrate,  on  the  basis  of  whose  subjective satisfaction the detention order was made and therefore,  it was illegal. (ii)From  the  counter-affidavit, it was clear  that  there were  "reliable  informations" and material other  than  the solitary ground of detention communicated to the detenu  and so,   the   detenu  was  unable  to   make   an.   effective representation.    Therefore,   the  detention   order   was violative  of clause (5) of Art.  "I of the Constitution  of India etc. Allowing the petitions, HELD  :  (1) When a Rule Nisi is issued in a  habeas  corpus petition,  it  is incumbent upon the State  to  satisfy  the court that the detention of the petitioner was legal and  in conformity  not  only with the mandatory provisions  of  .he Act, but is also in accord with the requirements of Cl.  (5) of Art. 22 of the Constitution. [262 EJ Niranjan  Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 1972  S.C. 2215, referred to. (2)Since   the  Court  is  precluded  from   testing   the subjective  satisfaction  of  the  detaining  authority   by objective  standards, it is all the more desirable  that  in response  to the Rule Nisi, the counter-affidavit on  behalf of  the State should be sworn to by the District  Magistrate or  the  authority  on  whose  subjective  satisfaction  the detention order was made.  If for sufficient reason shown to the  satisfaction  of the Court that the  affidavit  of  the person   who  passed  the  detention  order  could  not   be furnished,  the  counter-affidavit should be sworn  by  some responsible  officer who personally dealt with the  case  in the Govt.  Secretariat etc. [262 E-F] In the present case, the deponent did not swear that he  had at  any relevant time personally dealt with the case of  the detenu   and  secondly,  the  explanation  given   for   not furnishing  the affidavit of the District Magistrate due  to his transfer from that District, was far from satisfactory. Ranjit Dam v. State of West Bengal A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1753 and J.  N.  Roy v. State of West Bengal A.I.R.  1972  S.C.  2143 referred to. 259 (3)The  failure  to furnish the counter-affidavit  of  the Magistrate who passedthe   order  of  detention  is   an impropriety.  However, in most cases, it mayDot be of  much consequence;  but in a few cases, for instance.  where  mala fides  or  extraneous considerations are attributed  to  the detaining authority, it may, taken in conjunction with other circumstances, assume the shape of a serious infirmity. [263 C] (4)In  the  counter-affidavit, it was mentioned  that  the detenu  was a "veteran copper wire stealer" and  there  were "reliable  information"  before  the  District   Magistrate. Those    reliable    information   were    withheld.     The words  ..veteran  copper wire stealer" also implied  a  long course  of  repetitive,  thievery  of  copper-wire,  it   is manifest  that but for those "reliable information"  showing that  the  detenu  was repeatedly  and  habitually  stealing copper  wire, the District Magistrate might not have  passed the   detention  order  in  question.   Further,  from   the ’Criminal  Biography,  supplied by the State, it  was  clear that  all  material particulars of the ground  of  detention necessary  to  enable  the  detenu  to  make  an   effective representation were not communicated to the detenu.   Hence, the  impugned order of detention is violative of Art.  22(5) of  the  Constitution and therefore, liable to  be  quashed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

Similarly, the other two petitions were also allowed on  the ground  that material particulars were not  communicated  to the  detenues  and therefore, the detentions  were  illegal. [263 G- 264 C]

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION: Writ Petition- Nos. 1679,  1662  and 1681 of 1973. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus.) R.   K. Jain, amicus curiae for the Petitioner. M.   M. Kshatriya and G. S. Chatterjee for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA  J.-This  judgment will dispose of  all  the  three petitions   above-mentioned   under  Article   32   of   the Constitution of India.  It will be convenient to first  take up Writ Petition No. 1679 of 1973. The  petitioner Shaik Hanif, aged 40 years, was arrested  on February  23, 1973 in pursuance of a detention order,  dated February  19, 1973, passed by the District Magistrate,  West Dinajpur  in West Bengal under sub-s. (1) read  with  sub-s. (2) of s.3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (for short, ’the Act’).  On February 19, 1973, the  District Magistrate reported about his detention to the State Govern- ment which approved it on March 1, 1973.  The detenu made  a representation which was rejected by the State Government on April  5,  1973  and forwarded to  the  Advisory  Board  for consideration.   The Board reported to the State  Government on  April 24. 1973 that there was sufficient cause  for  the detention.  Thereupon the Government confirmed the order  of detention  under  s.12(1) of the Act and directed  that  the detention  of  the  petitioner  would  continue  "till   the expiration  of 12 months from the date of his  detention  or until  the expiry of Defence of India Act of 1971  whichever is later." The grounds of detention as conveyed to the detenu under  P. 8(1), read as under : 260               "You  are  being detained in  pursuance  of  a               detention  order  on the ground that you  have               been  acting  in a manner prejudicial  to  the               maintenance of supplies and services essential               to   the  community,  as  evidenced   by   the               particulars given below :               On 3-7-72 at dead of night you along with your               associates  kept  concealed  20  bundles,   of               Telegraph  copper  wire weighing 2  qutls.  60               kgs.  in  your court-yard under earth  with  a               view  to  dispose  of the  same  in  opportune               moment.   The said Telegraph copper wire  were               recovered  on  3-7-72  on  the  basis  of  the               confession  of  your associates.   The  police               seized  those  copper wire and  arrested  your               associate   but  you  evaded   arrest.    This               activity  of yours seriously affected  one  of               the  essential  services to the  community  by               disrupting Telegraph facilities to the  public               and thus you acted in a manner prejudicial  to               the  maintenance  of  supplies  and   services               essential to the community.               You  are hereby informed that you may  make  a               representation to the State Government against               the detention order your case shall be  placed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

             before  the Advisory Board within thirty  days               from  the’  date of your detention  under  the               order.               You  are also informed that under  Section  11               (Act 26 of 1971) the Advisory Board, shall  if               you desire to be heard, hear you in person.               Sd/- K. L. Gupta 19-2-73.               District     Magistrate,    West     Dinajpur,               Balurghat".               In  answer  to the Rule Nisi  issued  by  this               Court,  Shri Sukuniar Sen,  Deputy  Secretary,               Home (Special) Department, Government of  West               Bengal filed the counter-affidavit, explaining               that  the district Magistrate who  passed  the               order   of  detention  "is  at   present   not               available  for affirming the affidavit  as  he               has been transferred from the said  District".               In para 4 of the affidavit, it is stated :               "It  appears  from  the  records  that   after               receiving reliable information relating to the               illegal anti-social and prejudicial activities               of the above-named detenu-petitioner  relating               to  the maintenance of supplies  and  services                             essential  to the community, the said  District               Magistrate  of West Dinajpur passed  order  of               detention against him under the provisions  of               the said Act."               In para 7, it is averred               "I  further  state that it  appears  from  the               record that the petitioner is a veteran copper               wire stealer.  It was found on 3-7-72 that the               petitioner  and his associates kept  concealed               about  20  bundles  of  telegraph  cable  wire               underground  in  the court-yard of  his  house               with  a view to dispose the same at  opportune               moment.  The said removal of copper wire from                261               the telegraph lines resulted in disruption  of               telegraph  service and he was  detained  under               the said Act". In paragraph 9 of the affidavit it is inter alia stated that the  "statements  made in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6  and  7  are based  on information derived from the records kept  in  the office  of  the  State Government  in  its  Home  Department (Special Section), which I verily believe to be true." Mr.  R.  K. Jain, who assisted the Court  as  amicus  curiae advanced these contentions in support of the petition :  (1) After the issue of Rule Nisi by this Court, it was incumbent upon  the  Respondent-State to satisfy the Court  about  the legality of the detention by producing the affidavit of  the District  Magistrate  who had. passed the  detention  order. The  counter-affidavit of the Deputy Secretary who  did  not personally deal with the case at any stage, is no substitute for the affidavit of the District Magistrate on the basis of whose  subjective,  satisfaction,  the  detention  has  been effected.  The omission to file the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate coupled with the other circumstances  of the  case, shows that the detention order was passed  in  an utterly  casual way, without application of mind and it  was therefore,  illegal; (2) From the counter-affidavit  of  the Deputy  Secretary,  it  appears that  there  were  "reliable information" and material (other than the solitary ground of detention  communicated to the detenu) before the  detaining authority  on the basis of which it was satisfied  that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

petitioner was a "veteran copper wire stealer" and had  been indulging in "illegal anti-social activities prejudicial  to the  maintenance of supplies and services essential  to  the community".  Since the, nondisclosure of that information or material  lo the detenu is not sought to be justified  under clause  (6) of Article 22, on the ground of its being  facts which  the detaining authority considers to be  against  the public  interest  to  disclose, it was  incumbent  upon  the authority  to  communicate the detenu that  information  and material  in full.  Since this was not done, the detenu  was unable to make an :effective representation.  The  detention order  was  thus violative of the mandate of clause  (5)  of Article 22, and liable to be struck down on that score;  (3) The  Act  is  violative  of  Articles  19  and  21  of   the Constitution because its :-               (a)   Section  3  makes no  provision  for  an               objective  determination of the truth  of  the               allegations  that  form the  basis  of  action               under that section;               (b)   Section   8   does   not   provide   for               consideration  of  the representation  of  the               detenu by an impartial body in accordance with               the principles of natural justice;               (c)   Section It enables the Advisory Board to               base  its report on the material  received  by               the  Board from the Officer passing the  order               of detention without the said           report               being  disclosed  to the  detenu  and  without               affording him an opportunity to controvert the               contents of the said report;               262               (d)   Sections 11 and 12 empower the  Advisory               Board  and the State Government, as the.  case               may be,. to take, into consideration materials               and  information without giving the detenu  an               opportunity  to  make  his  submissions   with               regard   to  those  materials  or  to   adduce               evidence to disprove the allegations  levelled               against him. (4)  (a)  The  continuance  of Emergency in as  much  as  it suspends Fundamental Rights, indefinitely under an executive fiat  is  unconstitutional.   What  the  Parliament   cannot destroy  in exercise of its amendatory powers under  Article 368, a fortiori, the President cannot bury by embalming  and encasing   the   same  in  a  Proclamation   of   Emergency. Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19 are essential features   of   the,  Constitution  and   their   indefinite suspension  under the cloak of Emergency, amounts  to  their destruction;  (b) In forming in opinion as to the  necessity of   proclaiming   Emergency  under  Article  352   of   the Constitution, the President has to act on certain  objective facts open to judicial scrutiny.  The war having ended  more than two years ago, there is no justification for continuing the Proclamation of Emergency. We will take up contentions (1) and (2) together.. As was pointed out by this Court in Natarajan Singh v. State of  Madhya Pradesh,(1) where in a habeas corpus  petition  a Rule  Nisi  is  issued, it is incumbent upon  the  State  to satisfy  the Court that the detention of the petitioner  was legal  and  in  conformity  not  only  with  the   mandatory provisions  of  the  Act, but is also  in  accord  with  the requirements  implicit  in clause (5) of Article 22  of  the Constitution.  Since the Court is precluded from testing the subjective  satisfaction  of  the  detaining  authority   by objective  standards, it is all the more desirable  that  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

response to the Rule Nisi the counter-affidavit on behalf of the  State should be sworn to by the District Magistrate  or the authority on whose subjective satisfaction the detention order under s.3 was passed.  If for sufficient reason  shown to  the  satisfaction  of the Court, the  affidavit  of  the person who passed the order of detention under s.3 cannot be furnished,  the  counter-affidavit should be sworn  by  some responsible  officer who personally dealt with or  processed the  case in the Government Secretariat or submitted  it  to the  Minister  or other Officer duly  authorised  under  the rules  of business framed by the Governor under Article  166 of  the  Constitution  to  pass  orders  on  behalf  of  the Government in such matters. In  the instant case, the counter-affidavit of Shri  Sukumar Sen  Deputy Secretary, Home, suffers from  two  infirmities. Firstly,  the  deponent does not swear that he  had  at  any relevant time personally dealt with the case of the  detenu. He  has  verified the correctness of the  averments  in  his affidavit on the basis of facts gathered from tile  official records.  Secondly, the explanation given for not furnishing the affidavit of the District Magistrate who had passed  the detention order, is that the Magistrate has been transferred from  that  District.   The explanation is  far  from  being satisfactory. (1) A. I. R. 1972 S. C. 2215.                             263 In  Ranjit Dam v. State of West Bengal,(1) the reason  given for  not’  making the counter-affidavit  by  the  Magistrate himself, who had passed the detention order, was that he had since  then  been  appointed  as  Secretary  of  the   State Electricity  Board.  It was held that the reason, given  was not  satisfactory.   "Shri  Sukumar Sen  is  incharge  of  a specially created cell in the Government Secretariat of West Bengal, which maintains the records of all persons  detained under  the Act.  It is true that a similar reason given  for not  furnishing the affidavit of the Magistrate  who  passed the impugned order, was accepted by this Court in J. N.  Roy v.  State  of  West Bengal,(2)  and  instead,  the  counter- affidavit  of the Secretariat official  specially  entrusted with detention cases was deemed sufficient.  But that was so because  nothing turnedon it.  Nevertheless, the failure  to furnish  the counter-affidavit of theMagistrate  who  passed the  order of detention, is an impropriety.  In most  cases, it  may not be of much consequence but in a few  cases,  for instance, where mala fides or extraneous considerations  are attributed: to the Magistrate or the detaining authority, it may,  taken in conjunction with other circumstances,  assume the  shape  of  a serious infirmity, leading  the  Court  to declare  the detention illegal.  In the present  case,  too, the  mere  omission to file the affidavit of  the  District- Magistrate does not vitiate the detention orders.  But it is a  circumstance,  among  others,  in  the  light  of   which contention (2) is to be appreciated. The  Act  restricts citizens’ personal liberty  which  is  a fundamental’ right under the Constitution.  It has therefore to  be construed strictly, as far as possible, in favour  of the  citizen  and in a manner that does  not  restrict  that right  to an extent greater than is necessary to  effectuate that object.  The provisions of the Act have, therefore,  to be applied with watchful care and circumspection.  It is the duty  of the. court tosee that the efficacy of  the  limited yet  crucial, safeguards provided in the law  of  preventive detention is not lost in mechanical routine, dull casualness and  chill  indifference  on the  part  of  the  authorities entrusted  with  their application.  Let us  therefore  see,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

whether  there has been sucha careful and strict  compliance with the legal procedure in the instant case. In  the  counter-affidavit, the Deputy Secretary  has  inter alia,  stated that the petitioner is a "veteran copper  wire stealer"  and there were "reliable informations" before  the District   Magistrate   about  his   antisocial   activities prejudicial  to  the maintenance of  supplies  and  services essential  to the community.  "Veteran copper wire  stealer" implies a long course of repetitive thievery of copper-wire. No-one is born a knave: it takes time for one to become  so. It  is  manifest that but forthose  "reliable  informations" showing  that  the  detenu  was  repeatedly  and  habitually stealing  copper  wire, the District Magistrate,  night  not have   passed  the  detention  order  in  question.    Those "reliable  information" were withheld.  No  privilege  under clause  (6)  of Article 22 has been claimed  in  respect  of them.   Even the main ground viz. that the petitioner  is  a "veteran copper wire stealer" was not, as such,, (1) A. 1. R. 1972 S. C, 1753. (2) A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2143.. 264 communicated  to the detenu.  The ground intimated was  that "you  have  been  acting  in a  manner  prejudicial  to  the Maintenance  of  Supplies  and  Services  essential  to  the community".   Only one solitary instance of the recovery  of stolen  copper-wire from the petitioner’s house on  3-7-1972 was conveyed to the detenu. Learned  Counsel  for  the State has  been  fair  enough  to collect and place before us what the Deputy Secretary in his counter-affidavit called "reliable information" on the basis of which the District Magistrate ordered the detention.   In this,  under the caption "Criminal Biography", is  mentioned inter alia, how the petitioner with his associates organised a gang to steal telegraph copper wire systematically. From what has been said above, it is clear as day light that all  material particulars of the ground of  detention  which were  necessary ,to enable--the detenu to make an  effective representation, were not communicated to him.  The  impugned order  of detention is thus ,violative of Article  22(5)  of the Constitution, and is liable to be quashed on that  score alone. In view of the above finding, it is not necessary to  decide the. .remaining contentions canvassed by Mr. Jain. Now we take up Writ Petition No. 1662 of 1973.  In this case also,  Shri  Sukumar Sen, Deputy Secretary in  his  counter- affidavit  .averred  that the detenu was a  "veteran  copper wire stealer" and that the District Magistrate, Burdwan, had passed the order of the petitioner’s detention on receipt of reliable  information  about the illegal,  anti-.social  and prejudicial  activities of the petitioner.  Here  also,  all the ’material information’ showing or even alleging how  the petitioner  was  a  "veteran copper wire  stealer"  was  not communicated  to  him.   Only  two  instances  of  theft  of electric  copper wire which took place on November  6,  1971 and November 25, 1971 were intimated to him. Learned  Counsel for the State has placed for our perusal  a copy of History Sheet of the detenu on receiving which,  the District  Magistrate  had  passed  the  impugned  order   of detention.  Among other facts, it is mentioned therein  that on November 3, 1973, also, the petitioner alongwith his  two associates  had  committed theft of,  electric  copper  wire measuring 125 ft. from the electric poles near Hatgarui  and a  case  under  section 379, Penal Code  was  registered  in Police  Station Asansol on the same date, relating  to  this theft.   It  is further stated that "from  his  boyhood  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

petitioner  started  mixing up  with  anti-social  elements, wagon-breakers  and  in course of time, he  along  with  his associates,  indulged in thefts of iron  materials,  copper- wire and other forms of crime". All  this matter including that concerning the  theft  dated November  3,  1973, was admittedly not communicated  to  the detenu.   Its  non to the detenu is not being  justified  as privileged under Article 22(6).  Thus in this case also, all the material or adequate particulars relatable to the ground intimated,  were  not  conveyed to the detenu.   It  is  not possible  to  predicate how far the mind of  the  ,detaining authority  was influenced in passing the order of  detention by  the  uncommunicative material.  By  this  omission,  the petitioner’s 265. constitutional  right of making an effective  representation was seriously. jeopardised. In the result the detention of the petitioner (Gudma  Majhi) must be held to be illegal. In  Writ Petition No. 1681 of 1973, the ground of  detention as communicated to the petitioner, Kamal Saha, ran as  under :               "That  on 10-12-1972 at about 19-30  hrs.  you               and  your associates being armed with  daggers               put  all the passengers to fear of death of  a               IInd Class Compartment of 162 Dn. train at New               Barrackpore  R.S.  and  committed  robbery  in               respect   of  one  bundle  of  woollen   Shawl               containing 90 pieces valued at Rs. 9500/- from               Golam  Kadar  Kashmiri  of  96  Ripon   Street               Calcutta-16,  you were subsequently  arrested.               44  pieces of shawl valued a Rs.  4500/-  were               recovered later on. Your action caused  panic,               confusion and disturbed public order then  and               there,  you  have  thus  acted  in  a.  manner               prejudicial  to  the  maintenance  of   public               order".               In  Para 7 of counter-affidavit, Shri  Sukumar               Sen, Deputy Secretary, stated               "that  it  appears from the records  that  the               petitioner  is a veteran Railway Criminal  and               was indulging in committing robbery in running               sub-urban  trains.  It appears that on  10-12-               1972  at about 19-30 hours the petitioner  and               his  associates armed with daggers,  committed               robbery    in    a    III    class     Railway               Compartment......" The  history-sheet  communicated by  the  Superintendent  of Police  to,, the detaining authority states that "he  formed and  organised  a  gang and started  committing  robbery  in Sealdah Bongaon Railway Section., This gang is so  desperate that  nor body of the locality resists them,. even  if  they commit  robbery  and  other  offences  even  in  their  very presence.   They  always move with deadly  weapons  such  as pype-guns, daggers, bombs etc. by which they intimidate  the local people." Thereafter,  instances  of two robberies  committed  by  him along with his associates, on January 30, 197Z and August 1, 1972,  are,  mentioned.  The particulars of any  past  crime committed  by him, which were necessary for showing  how  he was a veteran railway criminal, were not communicated to the detenu.   In  respect of the uncommunicative  material,  nor privilege under Art. 22(6) was claimed’. 266 In  the  absence of those material particulars,  the  detenu

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

could  not ,exercise his constitutional right of  making  an effective  representation.   In  other  words,  the  grounds communicated to the petitioner suffered .from vagueness. For  the  reasons  aforesaid, all the  three  petitions  are allowed and the petitioner in each of them is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. Nothing in this judgment, however shall preclude, the  State Government /District Magistrate, if so advised, from passing fresh  orders of the detention of the petitioners or any  of them,  after  full  and  meticulous  ’compliance  with   the procedure prescribed by law. S.C. Petitions allowed. 267