1979 (8) TMI 222 - SC - Indian Laws

Detention Order Deemed Illegal, Violating Fundamental Rights

MOHAMMAD YOUSUF RATHER Versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the grounds of detention in the case were both vague and irrelevant, violating the petitioner's fundamental rights under ... - Issues Involved:1. Vagueness of the grounds of detention.2. Irrelevance of the grounds of detention.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Vagueness of the Grounds of Detention:The petitioner challenged the detention order under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that some grounds were so vague that he could not exercise his fundamental right to make a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The grounds of detention were communicated to the petitioner via an annexure to the District Magistrate's order. The respondents' counsel could not argue that no part of the annexure was vague. The annexure included statements such as the petitioner being a 'die-hard Naxalite' and organizing meetings to instigate lawlessness, without specifying locations or details. For instance, the first paragraph did not mention the places where the petitioner organized meetings or the nature of lawlessness instigated. Similarly, the fifth paragraph vaguely mentioned the petitioner instigating educated unemployed youth without detailing the nature or purpose of the instigation. The sixth paragraph was also vague as it did not specify the villages or the name of the house owner allegedly set on fire. The court held that such vagueness impinges on the fundamental right under Article 22(5) to make a representation against the detention order, as established in State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya and other cases.2. Irrelevance of the Grounds of Detention:The petitioner also argued that several grounds of detention were irrelevant for making an order under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. Paragraph 2 mentioned the petitioner organizing a meeting to protest against the treatment of Z. A. Bhutto, which did not fall within the purview of 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order' as defined in Section 8(3)(b). Paragraph 3 alleged the petitioner made derogatory remarks against the Chief Minister and asked people to rise in revolt, but did not indicate any promotion of enmity or use of force. Paragraph 4 referred to a poster advocating revolution, which did not necessarily imply acting prejudicially to public order. Paragraph 5, mentioning the petitioner instigating a hunger strike, was also deemed irrelevant as it did not connect to public disorder. The inclusion of irrelevant grounds among relevant ones infringes the detenu's constitutional rights, as established in cases like Keshav Talpade v. The King Emperor and others. The court concluded that the detention order was vitiated due to the inclusion of irrelevant grounds, leading to the petitioner's release.Separate Judgment by Chinnappa Reddy, J.:Justice Chinnappa Reddy added a note agreeing with the conclusions of Justice Shinghal. He emphasized that preventive detention, while recognized as a necessary evil, must satisfy the requirements of both Articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution. He reiterated that Article 22(5) ensures the detenu's rights to be informed of the grounds of detention and to make a representation against it. The inclusion of irrelevant or vague grounds infringes these rights. He disagreed with the respondents' counsel's attempt to separate introductory facts from grounds of detention, stating that all factual allegations leading to the detention order are grounds of detention. He pointed out that expressions like 'revolt' and 'revolution' are context-dependent and do not inherently imply public disorder. Therefore, grounds based on such expressions were deemed vague and irrelevant.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found that the grounds of detention were both vague and irrelevant, violating the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Consequently, the detention order was declared illegal, and the petitioner was ordered to be released.