TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether detention grounds alleging assaults on specific individuals were relevant to the maintenance of public order under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. (ii) Whether detention is invalid when one of the communicated grounds is vague, even if other grounds are not vague or may otherwise be relevant.
Issue (i): Whether detention grounds alleging assaults on specific individuals were relevant to the maintenance of public order under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
Analysis: The Act permits detention only to prevent conduct prejudicial to public order. The distinction between public order and law and order is one of degree and impact: acts affecting only particular individuals or causing local breaches of peace do not necessarily affect the community at large. Grounds based on solitary assaults, threats, or similar incidents directed against identified persons were held insufficient to establish a proximate connection with public order. Where the grounds are irrelevant to the statutory purpose, the detention order falls outside the power conferred by the Act.
Conclusion: The detention orders based on such grounds were illegal and ultra vires, and the detenus to whom those grounds applied were entitled to release.
Issue (ii): Whether detention is invalid when one of the communicated grounds is vague, even if other grounds are not vague or may otherwise be relevant.
Analysis: The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) requires that each ground communicated to the detenu must be definite enough to enable an effective representation. A vague ground deprives the detenu of that right. The defect is not cured merely because other grounds are specific or because some grounds may independently support detention. If one material ground is vague, the detention is vitiated because it cannot be determined how far the invalid ground influenced the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
Conclusion: The detention order was invalid where any communicated ground was vague, and the detenus affected by such defect were entitled to release.
Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the constitutional challenge in part and rejected it only for the detenus against whom no illegality was shown, resulting in release for the affected petitioners and refusal of relief for the remaining petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: Detention under preventive detention law fails where the communicated grounds are either irrelevant to public order or include a vague ground that defeats the detenu's right of effective representation, and the presence of other valid grounds does not save the order.
TaxTMI 
