Preventive detention wording upheld where the statutory expression covered prejudice to State security or public order, not vagueness.

A detention order under section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 was upheld where it stated that detention was necessary to prevent conduct prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. The majority held that section 3(1), read with section 3(2), uses a compendious expression covering activities that may affect one or both protected interests, so the disjunctive wording did not show vagueness or lack of application of mind. The supplied grounds were also held to fall within the statutory definition and not to be extraneous. A dissent would have required clear specification of the precise basis for detention.

---

---

Issues: Whether a detention order under section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 was invalid because it stated that the detaining authority was satisfied that detention was necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.

Analysis: The majority held that section 3(1), read with the defining provision in section 3(2), uses a compendious expression covering activities prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, and in some cases both. The statute does not create two wholly separate and rigidly exclusive heads for every case. Because the defined activities may, depending on their reach and potentiality, affect either one or both of the protected interests, the use of the disjunctive expression in the order was not treated as showing vagueness or absence of application of mind. The grounds supplied in the case were also held to fall within the statutory definition and not to be extraneous.

Conclusion: The detention order was held valid and the writ petition failed.

Dissenting Opinion: Shelat, J. held that the authority had to indicate with clarity whether the detention was based on prejudice to the security of the State, public order, or both, and that use of the disjunctive expression rendered the order vague and mechanically framed; on that view the detention was bad.

---