AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.
This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of The Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of an habeas corpus directing release of the petitioner Bakhshish Singh, who is an officer of the Punjab and Sind Bank, at Amritsar, and is now said to be under unlawful detention Bakhshish Singh, petitioner, is a dedicated follower of Bhoi Randhir Singh, who was a devout Sikh. He performs kirtan, at different places to propagate Sikh faith and by force of habit and conviction he wears the dress of a conventional Sikh, which to a great that extent resembles the wearing apparels of Nihang Sikhs. Bakhshish Singh was implicated as an accused in case FLA No. 89 dated 7th June, 1982, under Section 1.3 of the Unlawful Activities. (Prevention) Act, registered at Police Station Dhilwan, District Kapurthala. He was served with orders of detention dated 9th August, 1982, passed by the District Magistrate, Kapurthala. under section 3 (2), read with section 3 (3) of the National Security Act, 1990 (for short. ''the Act''). Along with the detention order, the petitioner was supplied with grounds of detention. It was mentioned therein that on the 4th or 5th of June, 1982, Bakhashish and his three named companions incited people present at buststop Of Village Niani to become members of ''Dal Khalsa. which is a banned organisation. He also exhorted people to donate liberally for the achievement off a separate State of Khalistan by seceding from the Union of India. Similar exhortations were made by him and his companions at Bus Stop, Batala, on, the 7th of June, 1982.
The writ petition first came up for hearing before me. Feeling that the points raised in the writ petition were of some importance, I referred the case for decision by a Larger Bench. That is how this writ petition is before us.
In order to appreciate the points in. controversy, it will be apposite to set down the grounds of detention in extenso. They read as follows
Ground No. 1 :
"You Bakhshish Singh aforesaid on 4th or 5th June, 1982 along with your companions namely Piara Singh s/o Sham Singh, resident of Batala, P.S. Dhilwan, Baldev Singh s/o Bhagat Singh resident of Mansurwal, and Harbans Singh s/o Shankar Singh resident of Sangowal, all belonging to P.S. Dhilwan, District K were present at the bus stop village Niani and were inciting the people collected thereto become the members of Dal Khalsa which is a banned organisation You were also asking them that a separate State of `Khalistan'' was to the created by secession from the Union of India. You had also told the people collected there that the said State of `Khalistan'' will only be meant for ''Sikhs'' and asked them to donate money liberally for the achievement of this objective. You along with your companions collected donations of Rs. 50/ or Rs. 100/ for the said purpose from various persons.
Ground No. 2 :
Again on 7 6.82 at about evening time you along with Piara Singh, Baldev Singh and Harbans Singh were present at Bus Stop of your village Batala and exhorted the people collected there to donate liberally for the creation of a separate State of `Khalistan'' by secession from the Union of India and had also collected an amount of Rs. 50/ or 100/for the aforesaid purpose."
The Constitution, in Article 21 and in other Articles of Part III, has attempted to strike a balance between individual liberty and the general interest of the Society. The power of preventive detention was acquiesced in as a necessary evil. However, certain fundamental rights were guaranteed in clauses (4) to (7) of Article 22 of the Constitution to persons arrested or detained, under arty law for preventive detention, without a regular judicial trial or inquiry. The power of preventive detention has been hedged by diverse procedural safeguards devised to minimise, as far as possible, the danger of its misuse by the executive. And, to highlight their importance, Article 22 has been placed in Part III of the Constitution, which enshrines fundamental rights.
The detenu has been conferred a right to be supplied with grounds of detention and the right to make an effective representation against the order of detention. This is an effort to make up, to some extent for the denial of other fundamental rights. This requirement, however, 6will be satisfied only if the detenu is supplied sufficient particulars to enable him to make an effective representation against the detention order. The sufficiency of the grounds necessarily involves that they must not be vague and indefinite. If the grounds supplied to the detenu are vague or indefinite, he will be deprived of opportunity of making an effective representation. The constitutional requirements must be satisfied with respect to reach of the grounds communicated to the detenu. Even if one of the grounds is vague, the order of detention shall be vitiated. The detenu may be able to satisfy the appropriate Government or the Advisor Board about the other grounds his representation may fail, because he could not, in the absence of particulars, rebut a vague ground, and his detention may be confirmed. The case pertaining to the incident o the 8th of June, 1982, was registered on the 9th of June, 1982. It must have been thoroughly investigated by the police. The order of detention has been passed on the 9th of August, 1982. Even then, it has not been made clear as to on what date, whether 4th or 5th of June, 1982, the petitioner and his companions incited people at the busstop of village Niani. In the absence of a specific and definite date when this meeting took place, the ground No. 1 is vague. The petitioner could not rebut these allegations in his representations to the appropriate Government or the Advisory Board because if he had an ali bi for one of these two dates, the State could argue that the incident may have taken place on the other day.
In Golam alias Golam Mallick v. The State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 754, the material particulars were not communicated to the detenu. In this connection it was observed :
"......The material served on the detenu is conspicuous by the nonmention of many facts of the incident, such a as, the quantity of wheat stolen, the implements or weapons, if any with the thieves, the show of force, if any, accompanying the theft, the magnitude and duration of the dislocation caused to the supplies and services etc. etc."
In the context of these facts it was held :
"....Thus the solitary ground communicated to the detenu was so truncated and shorn of material particular son which the District Magistrate had based the order of detention, that the detenu was disabled to make an effective representation. The order of detention is therefore vitiated and illegal."
It is now wellsettled that if one of the grounds of detention is vague or irrelevant, that is sufficient to vitiate the order of detention. It is not possible to know as to what extent the irrelevant or vague ground influenced the mind of the detaining authority in reaching a subjective satisfaction. In Mohd. Yousuf Rathore v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, 1979 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 999, it has been observed :
"Even if one of the grounds of detention is irrelevant, that is sufficient to vitiate the order. The reason is that it is not possible to passes in what manner and to what extent that irrelevant ground operated in the mind of the appropriate authority and contributed to provide the satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order."
The same view had been taken by the Final Court in State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya, 1951 SCR 167 : 1951 SC 157 : Tarapada De v. Sate of W.B. 1051 SCR 212; A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 174 : Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj v. State of Delhi, 1953 SCR 708; AIR 1953 SC 318; Shibban Lal Sakesena v. State of U.P. 1954 SCR 418 : AIR 1954 SC 179 : Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. State of Bihar, (1968)2 SCR 505; AIR 1968 SC 1303; Motilal Jain v. State of Bihar, 1969(1) SCC 10; 1968(3) SCR 587; Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of W.B., 1969(2) SCR 163; AIR 1970 SC 852, Keshav talpade v. King Emperor, 1943 FCR 49 and Satya Brata Ghose v. Mr. Arif Ali. District Magistrate, Forhat, 1974(30 SCC 600.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that ground No. 1 is extremely vague. Consequently, we hold that orders dated 9th August, 1982, are illegal and void
In view of our findings on ground No. 1, we do not think it is necessary to adjudicate upon the other points canvassed by Mr. Grewal the learned counsel for the petitioner.
We allow this writ petition, quash the order of detention dated 9th August, 1982 and direct that Bakhshish Singh, detenu, be released forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case