http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SHIV PRASAD BHATNAGAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/03/1981

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR  870            1981 SCR  (3)  81  1981 SCC  (2) 456        1981 SCALE  (1)592  CITATOR INFO :  R          1984 SC 211  (7)

ACT:      National Security Act-Section 12 (1)-Scope of-Staleness and irrelevance of grounds of detention-If would vitiate the order of detention.

HEADNOTE:      The petitioner was detained under section 12 (1) of the National Security  Act on the grounds that he, alongwith his friends, in  the second  week of  November, 1980 indulged in filthy  abuse   of  Muslims,   threatened  their  lives  and performed  "marpeet"   and  that   he  and   his  associates terrorised the  common man  in the  area  by  their  various criminal acts  which caused  disturbance to the public peace and public safety.      In support  of the  petition it was contended on behalf of the  petitioner that  the reference to associates without naming even  one rendered  the ground  vague and, therefore, vitiated the  order of  detention and (2) that the incidents enumerated in  the second  ground related to the years 1974, 1975, 1977  and 1978 which could not be said to be proximate enough to sustain the order of detention.      Allowing the petition, ^      HELD: The detenu is entitled to be released.      It is  now well  settled that grounds of detention must be pertinent  and not  irrelevant, proximate  and not state, precise and  not vague. Irrelevance, staleness and vagueness are vices  any single  one of which is sufficient to vitiate the order of detention. [83 D]      In  the   instant  case  the  incidents  enumerated  to substantiate the second ground show that apart from the vice of staleness  from which  they suffer,  they were related to "law and  order" and not to the maintenance of public order. They are  stale because  of the  passage of  time since  the happening of  some of  the incidents;  they  are  irrelevant because they related to law and order and not to maintenance of public order. [83 E]      In Re:  Sushanta Goswami  and Ors., [1969] 3 S.C.R. 138 followed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 397 of 1981.            (Under Article 32 of the Constitution)      Mrs. Shyamala  Pappu, M.  S. Mann,  S Shukhar, Miss Raj Shree and Mrs. Indra Sawhney for the Petitioner.      S. K. Gambhir and Vijay Hansaria for the Respondent. 82      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY  J.  Shiv  Prasad  Bhatnagar  is  under preventive detention  pursuant  to  an  order  made  by  the District Magistrate,  Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh. The order and the grounds  of detention were served on him on November 28, 1980. The  District Magistrate made a report of the order to the State  Government and  the latter approved the detention order on  December 2, 1980. The approval was communicated to the  detenu  on  December  5,  1980.  A  representation  was submitted by  the detenu  on December 13, 1980. The Advisory Board constituted  by the State Government met on January 3, 1981, considered  the  material  placed  before  it  by  the detaining authority  as well  as the  representation and the written arguments  submitted by  the detenu.  The detenu was also given  a personal hearing. The Advisory Board submitted its report  to the  State Government  on  January  4,  1981. Thereafter the  State  Government  confirmed  the  order  of detention on  February 3,  1981 under  Sec. 12  (1)  of  the National  Security   Act.  The   period  of   detention  was stipulated as  one year  from  the  date  of  the  order  of detention.  The   order   confirming   the   detention   was communicated to  the detenu  on February 12, 1981 and he was also informed  that the Advisory Board had opined that there was sufficient cause for his detention.      Smt. Shyamla Pappu, learned counsel for the detenu made a number  of submissions.  In the view that we are taking of one of the primary submissions, we do not think it necessary to  consider  the  rest  of  the  submissions.  The  primary submission that  we have  in mind  is that  the  grounds  of detention suffer  from  the  vice  of  either  vagueness  or staleness.  The   first  ground  mentions  that  the  detenu alongwith his friends, in the second week of November, 1980, indulged in  filthy abuse of Muslims, threatened their lives and performed "mar pit’’. Details of incidents were given to substantiate the  ground. As  many  as  six  incidents  were mentioned and  in everyone  of them  it was  said  that  the detenu alongwith his associates had indulged in this or that violent action.  No mention  was made  of the name of even a single associate.  The argument  was that  the reference  to ’associates’ without  naming even  one rendered  the  ground vague and,  therefore, vitiated  it. Similarly,  it was said the second  ground also  referred  to  the  detenu  and  his accociates without  naming even  a single  associate and for that reason  the second  ground also  was vague. The further submission was  that  the  incidents  enumerated  in  second ground were of the years 1974, 1975, 1977 and 1978 and could by no means be said to be proximate 83 enough to  sustain an  order of  preventive  detention.  The second ground  was to  the effect  that the  detenu and  his associates had terrorized the common man in the Vidisha area by their  various criminal  acts which caused disturbance to public peace  and  public  safety.  Several  incidents  were narrated to substantiate this ground. The first incident was of the  year 1974, the second incident was of the year 1975, the next  three incidents were of the year 1977 and the rest

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

of the incidents barring the last one were of the year 1978. A perusal  of the  incidents enumerated  to substantiate the second ground  show that  apart from  the vice  of staleness from which  they appear to suffer, the incidents are related to "law  and order"  and not  to the  maintenance of  public order. The  incidents appear  to bear a striking resemblance to the  grounds of  detention which  were considered  In Re: Sushanta Goswami  & Ors.,  (1) particularly  in the cases of Debendra Nath  Das,  Abdul  Wahab,  Anil  Das,  Dilip  Kumar Chakraborty and  Ashoka Kumar  Mukherjee.  It  is  now  well settled that  grounds of detention must be pertinent and not irrelevant, proximate  and not stale, precise and not vague. Irrelevance, staleness  and vagueness  are vices  any single one of which is sufficient to vitiate a ground of detention. And, a  single vicious  ground is  sufficient to  vitiate an order of  detention. In  the present  case we  are satisfied that the  second ground  of detention  suffers both from the vice of  staleness, because of the passage of time since the happening  of   some  of  the  incidents  and  the  vice  of irrelevance because  they relate  to ’law and order’ and not to ’the maintenance of public order’. The detenu is entitled to be released. He is directed to be released forthwith. The petition is allowed. P.B.R.                                      Petition allowed 84