PRABHU DAYAL DEORAH ETC. ETC. versus THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAMRUP & ORS.

12 pRABHU DAYAL DEORAH ETC. ETC. l ., v. THE DISTRICT MAGISRATE, K.AMRUP & ORS. . October ll. 1973. [K. K. MATHEW, M. H. BEG AND A. K. MUKHERJEA, JJ.] . 1 InterMI Security Act, !971, s. 3(2}(e)-One of _the groulldJ Mamt~11anct [0 ]V /'dity of dctemion-Dclay by Governmcllt m r~ccting o/ dettntwn l'D8Ue- [1 ]tlttrnu'J rtpresrntation-Effect. Th titioner were detained by orders under'· 3(2) (a)_ of the Ma.in~nance of Int;r~~ Security Act, 1971. The fm;_t grou?~ of dctcnuon sta~d tb~t the petitioners "ere responsible for una.uth~nseo.i m1lhng o( paddy and sn~uggilng the resultant rice to Megbalaya for sclhng 11 at l!~due pr~?llt. The pcuuon~r, liellf representations to the State Goyernment rrusmg vanous groun~ aga111>t tb~ validity or the order.~ of detenuon. The State Government rcJec.tcd the rep~· ( I sentations. But even before that, and wben the matter was pcndmg before the Advisory Board. the petitioners filed petitions und.:r Art. 32 for the issue or writ of habf'OS. corpus. It was contended !but, (i) the 11rounds aiven in the detention orders were vagUe and indefinite that therefore the constitutional right or making rrpro:sentation against the detention order was defeated and hence r the dct<n_tioo. orJ~rs were vitiaJed; (ii) _there WJs inordi_n~te delay by the Gov. ernment m det~ining v1ew to authorities had not llpplied detc1_11lining d1sposmg of the the rcprcseotalions nec:d for detaining the petitioners their minds or the pehUoncrs· to the facts ~r for and the case, pre,(iii) ·enting with the 0 theJm fr~m acttng .m nny mann.:r prejudicial to the maint~nancc of supplie$ ~n M:r\1Ct1 e""l'nllal to the ·community. li£1.0 : (Ptr Mathew nnd Mukherjca, JJ) arc ( Ci) \"it:.~ The first ground The and th~ . petitioners lire !>( deteoti ~nt"~~ 0 1 vlngbue o rc nn1d ~ased hence from th<> custody. detentioru [ISG-HJord~rt . I elfccuve unles. the u~<'>S ag;u~t 3 J lhe h1> detcnu dctcnuon, and no requtremcot ;, det.enu Given of the earli<:st is Art. fu~ 0 22 ( rt s) umty0 _pportumty of _ th to . make the onstllutton to . . make . reprcsentauvn wdf . not r~prcscntauoo [00 ]satc;~~d can • ~ l. £rour><Js of detention. [20.4.-B]. ed wuh adequate particular.~ of all th~ . !b~ The fi~•t ground postulated th· . , Jautltonsed mdhns of paddy and a/jo t' the PC!IIIoner.s were indulgint: in UD· p~~ !~;;,~~~~~ ~h~ue p~ofit. lt ;. an" i~~~~-g~~~~1th~ resultant ric.: to Mq;h~-~':~t~~~g thf resultaor~~o~r5~1~~h:;I~·.1 un~~thorise! ~~~fn:'~f ~!~:?r :~d ~~ the purposee d{e~l!onen were rcsponsibl~ 'for w~ not. ta.~e where the grounJ proftt, io which ~ggl!ng the r~uhant rice t~nMuthhr:'cd milling of paddy for "'~r~ not ~<vailable ~u:lt c?uld have been said th:t· :: a~a. for earning undue ( milling was for s~u lin hat II' was natural infer. pan,culars about smusclin~ lc) Tb . gg g. !l~D·FJ •nee that the unauthoriscJ 0 c· todJcatc . ~r!le · on \~-hen. was l'Criod lind not h<>wlc~ durin& ~ta tn . \\h" the " J~round~ the unautho of ~~~~ed. . . rrulhng .of . . paddy h~d been I ~~:'}\g:nl!~'!ed tlte sei~r~~:tu,_t~ rice wa., s~~~~~fe~or ts thae IUIYtbing tll ,,f paddy oP<llhofl(On but gav~ n pa dy untl rice from to Mc!(h.llaya. Tbe ...:izcd une or th r the smuggling fro~t ~(of tJ [0 ]rartlculme 11.'1 rc . the unauthorised poss.:s· rnolltng k~d to rhc ur padt! inf~runoutht>ris.cd 1[ound• ];nee [Dlcntiuncd ]that the pcliti ton PO'i1o(}atldy und rice haeg [t~~][1][re•ultllnt ]of the [rice ]!>Clition~ [t~.~~js ][~j ]been ~~a. [unauthocb.~J ]uncarthcJ The fact [millios ]tb~t anJ Me¥h;•1Aya for ~~,~~~·:h les1 th:at th~;crs h~tl been ind"u? ,.woul~ uot n~.:(o;s,lrily '"&ue (d) th~ \ ~~ne ~~ lbe ground\ ~ Undue profit · r 1 MP-G;-20E-Fj wer~ Slnu~lllin the Jo;tng rcsulc;tn tnl unauthorised rke to li th~ that order if tbe of fi~~tloQ dct:~ti~~J ordtr"l wli mu,t ~.\clul!Jr~houncc~ ~nununi<:atcd to .b:t~~e ft''llllvner.. .. i~ founJ ,to be · OC, E) detltlnm11 auth Onty c~uld wouiJ not be: h,l\·e predicated pa~sed

P. D. DEOR•'"H V. DIST. l'l'lAGISTRATE

Ke~hi1v Talpade v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1943 FC p. 1 (p. 8),' Dr. &m Krisharr Bhardwaj '!· The Stare of Delhi & Ors.; [1953) S.C.R. p. 708, Motilal Jain 'Y. State of 111/wr & Ors. [1968] 3 S.C.R. p. 587, Mishrila/ lain v. The Di3trlct Magistrtlle, Kamrup & Vrs. [ l 971) 3 S.C.R. p. 693 State of Bombay v Alma Ram Sridhar Vaidya [1951] S.C.R. 167. ' ·

(e) This. i~ not case where o11:e. of the &r?Un~ of detention was merely vague. It IS case where the detamtng authonty dtd not apply its mind at all to one ?f the grounds of dctent~on.. If the detaining authority had no particulars b_eforc tl as regards t_he smuggling tt C?~ld not have b~eo possible for the autho· nty to h:•ve b~cn S'!-tl~ficd. that the pctllloners were smuggling rice to Meghalaya. If there 1s any particular mstance of smuggling of the kind in the mind of the detaining authority it would have been p0'5siblc to specify the particular instance.

[200-21Bl

(f) The fact that the Adv~ory Board would consider the representations of the petitioners wh~rein they have also raised the contention that the grounds arc vnguc would not in any way prevent this Court from e;t;erci.sing irs- jurisdic· tion under Art. 32. The ddenu bas right under Art. 22(5) to be afforded the c;,rlic~t opportunity for m:~.k.ing representation agairL~t tbe order of deten· tion. Thnt constitutional right includes within its compass the right to be furni:.hcJ with adequate particulars of the grounds of the detention order. If this constitutional right of theirs i3 viola1cd they have every right to come to this Court under Art. 3:! complaining that their detention is had. [21B·D].

. (g) Thi.~ is not case of wher~ any public interest was involved justifying the detaining authority under Art. 22(6), in not disd0'5ing all the particulars.

[22B·CJ

Luk·rcncl! Joachim Joseph D'Sau-z,a \·. Statt? of Bombay [1956} S.C.R. 382 di~tingui sbcd.

(h) If ground communicated to the detenu is vague, the fact that the peti· tioncrs could ha\'e a.sk.ed for further particulars, but they diJ not do so, is im· material and would not be enough to salvage the orders of detention. That fact would only be relevant for consiJering the qu~stion whether the ground is vpguc or not. [22E-F)

(i) The .gravity of th.: evil to the community resulting from anti~ocial acti-vities can never furnish. an adequate reason for invading the personal liberty of <1 citizen, except in ncc:orJance ·with the procedure established bv th~ Con<titu· tion anJ the !a"~· The hhtory of personal liberty is hrge!y the history of iruis· tcnce on nb~crvance of procedure. Social security is not the only goal of good .,oci.:ty. Our country is taking sin~ul:lr pride in the d~mocr:~tic ideals enshrined in i~ Co""titution and the most cherished of these ideals is personal liberty. Therefor.:, '' hatcver its impact on the maintenance of suo plies and service~ <"!lsenti;tl to th~ community may ~. when certain procedure is pre~cribcd by tbe Constitution or the laws for depriving citizen of his !i~rtv, it i~ the duty of the Court to sec that the procedure is rigorously observed. {Zl0-230]

(2) l n \·icw or the finding on th" first question it is not• necessary to consi· der the quc>tion v.hetht:r the .Ji,p.-xal of the: renresentatiom bv the Government wu.. inonlin;..tely delayed; nor i:l it n~~--..--ssary to. consider whether the detaining :,ttthllrity arrlkJ its mind to the oth.:r grounds tn the detention order. [22P·OI

Pa lkg, J. Th.: pctiti••n.:N haw not proved that the detaining _authority C\Cecdcd it~ rower in ddai!lins the petitioner on the grounds alleged aga~nst them, nor hal'c they provcJ that tht'ir deh:ntions had become sub~~uently illegal due to denial ut thdr con,titu!iunal right.s to make effective representations. [370]

(I) (a) ·r hi~ C.ourt C<lll C•l into the question whether the grounds ar.: so ,· a~:u.: il' to di-;.,hl.: thll p<'litiono:N from makin,R effective representation'! again~l the dch.'ntion orJ.:N or oth ~r" i~ \·itiat..:d the detention orders. In doing so, tn.: · tot:•lity of rd.:vant f.1ct~ an l drcum~tance.<> of each case must be t:~k.:_n into a~count in dct<•rmining \1 h~th!r th..: opportunitY of e-ffective representa!•on h~< \1.:cn d~:nicJ. The ullcgo:J \'aguene~~ or want of rnrticulars, mn~t be \'lewc_J Ill the conteJtl of the nature of activities alleged, the sub~tnnc.: of tho nlk!r.!ltons. thll conh: nl~ o! the represcnlationi mad.:, und thu effect they hav<- actually pro· .Juc:ed. The fact thnt the case i<J still under consiJc:ration. ~·ithin the leg~llv (i,cJ r<ri<>J of 10 we~:h from the detention, b.:fore an Adv1sory llourJ, wh1d1

~- ~··;· ·--;.

,.._::.: -[----=-][-]. ·.:... ... . -- -~. :---

-.- ·--:-. j[ 1974 ) 2 S.C.R. sUPREME coURT REPORTS 14 l . · . · te some grounds as vague or wanting ,and jurisdiction to ch'ffi~~ocy or otherwise of the rest of the has ful~ powc~od to dttermin.c the su \ be tgnorcd. [29C.,36F-Hl ' 10 srounds and parttcll ars [partJ][CU ]1 [a][rs ]. 1 . suppltcd, canno . 1 of recoveries made rom the; premis~ 1:! thch:~~~d ([b)][. ][In ]1 [the present ][were given; ]in an unauthortsbd [c:JSe][paru~u ][,. ][par][ar> ]=l~~ [•][~u ][0 ][~~c][c][o]and as [ver]well as [i][es ]the [ot]um.:s [. rice ]the and qual[and ].tltes p!aces. [sugar ]of [s]"lliere [a~d ]the [to ]rice re-gtvcn; [~a][v~ ]\ ( I th:"quantities rccov~red on {ac the sentences at the begtnmns and th[0 ]end o[1 ]·overed were given. Tit~rc ore, rounds in each cas<:, ap~areni;IY consutute tht u . ~he ~ondusion detention orders. stattDS . or mfercnces rca~ th~ ndcrsUtnd its meaning, J from the particulars shouldgwen m . )'e th~ reau body. a3 1\ " uocumcnt, tn order to corrc':'t Y n~tions submitted by tho peUttoner<> to th~ whole. perusOII !>f '::J ex~~erting that they wer~ unable to und~rstand, o•· make Government, r.ep~eSGutnttonsd wb~rem, nfunst !•r f~t~ ~e ounds nlleg:Uions of detenuon, of fact mnkes because it difficult of vagueness to sc~ i the petmoner procce to re d" by the alleged vaguene55. how the petitioners were really preJU ICC . [2&0-14; 29D-EJ ( . Ass ming however that there W:JS some infirmity or vaguen~ in some ar~c~f tb: detc~tion ord~ containing the. grounds it could not be said that it ~as of such n lcind as to vitiotc the detent tOn order. [2?-F 1 . _ (i) 11le question whether dctenu was _or was not.gtveo duo opport~mty ot mnJ;.iog foct which must an effective representation in. be decided after taking tnlo P.arucular account case the tS larg.:ly totallly of facts. qlle:jtton. (~ IHJ of (ii) It is true that the detcnu h>ts u. right und~r Art. 22 ( S I o~ tho ~~i~­tion to ~ afforded the earlio:.<t opportumty of makto~ represcntattan :!!PlC.~t the order. Ia the present ca>c, that upportunity h.~d been affonlcJ to the det.t:nus nnd thev have. made repres<:otations wbich includcu the grievance that ~omc of the groun<l1 wen: var.ue nnd in<lc:finitc. [31G] (iii) The ritbt of nulin, the representation cannot be construed so Ulll1:<l-'!>"'bly a1 .to proctic;,Uy d~molish the u.nchallenged power, unde.r com?tu-t•onally voltd sh!tutory pronswn, to COil_\luer and dectde the objecuons cont:uoed 10 reprc~enta!ton. There may be ca.~es \lohcre the grounds of detention !DAY. prima /ofil', show that the detention is invalid or ordered for some collateral P.UTl!OOC tn u~ess of the ~wer to detain;. or the foct5 indicating the denial of the ngbt of mll"nJ: an effecu,·e repre,~nta!ton may be so p11tent i\nd clear that it woul.d be an unoccessary proloogalton of an illegnl detention to wait for the ~~v·~?ry lloar'!i: w~ich is f:i,·en unll~r s. ll. 10 w<!<!ks time from th~ J::~te of ~~o~i~~o: c~[0]full po-..-er to rnabl~ • rurily wacric:v~ncect~l~the it ~~ ~l.'tcnu 1 [m ]l:.:.t 1[:e ]~~ until :o [tts report. ]•01 r~~~,rsentauun mak th: re 53[:r~ ][Wb~n ]ff[too]c-c,live repr"$cntatton [the ][ . vogue ]against [Advhory ][o~ ]th~ [mJe~tntlc ]~tr~u':'Js [Board ]the [to ]of [hl!S ][he ]det~nu detenti[unJcr'itO<l\l ]on shoulo.l tt>e usill!: [or ]onh[1~ ]-he wmplains th~t he has he:;:.,l\..,ys .!"'e~ md:ule by the Advisory Board b.:forc [328-G]. ' uepnve of any right under the Act. Wllh~!il . ( iv J cal ~lere line aUeption upon the of lletaiJi~cne•s va~: ·, . [0 ][ . grounds or insufficiency of particular;. to vJ!t•le 11 l!etention order. IJOFJ!I. uuthonty to remedy the defect is not enoug!l Sra~:' flh Xl•hav ~J'~~j Td~utl~ T/t, St<Jti v. T;mpaor ol D~ll1i & I R o~~ · [l~~j3l Sp.CI (1'.8), Dr. Rum Kri;•;,an sr:~·:;;·~iiJ~,amrup M ·1 ' "" & Ors., & !1968] 3 o,., 1197tj s j R ' S ~·i_87, M•· .<hrilal .R. p. 708, Jain v. Motilal TM J.;itl Disfri<"l v. l'o/clra, (J9Sti ~~~~ 2 S.C.R. jQ.S, Th~ sw!·0~'1· Rnm~rhwar l.al P<Jtwa_rl v. l!omhay, 11956) SC it 167, l..nwr~nc• loac-hllt 1 1om/ta~ v. Alma Ram Sr~dhar an~ ~II, S.C.R. Num/rdmed •IM1 , Chartd' l'urhk~ to ra ·,.; <;.u [011]fi RIIIi wr/t~ 382, v. & 1'he S/JI/>baOrs siut~ v 11 -:rw S' Ltd Safuplt We~ lt!lla BrllR<ll v. Sou:a v. State [19691 2 S.C.R. of U.P~ Tit~ State {19541 635, of fd) The fa~ th· m ~nRal & Or$., {1960}1 S.C.R· not vitiate the dct ~ond~ nUc~ {e 1 would not ·~ or the f:u:t th c~elt~•t nff~· ~t. ct the recoverv [11 ]co~ld [1 ]P:t~t vahlltty nl~ooc~urrcnce . be of of the suPrtvc~~~n u~ed sub' 1f ~e . ~r nmttdetention. forecasting ··~ .of {JJB] prn•~ution probable for future ao II " 'lll not so remot/~!~~~ l:!dcr o~ the R(o~nda.~f '!1°r7 than rear ago woultl cottstdered irreleva~ •[1]13 ~rrelevance. The recoverY t an VIew of the recovery of,

-=::=::::::::=~-rz

:·D. DEORAH V. DI'ST. MAGISTRATE (Matftew, 1.) . 1.5

" . hoarded gether,_ enabled rcgardmg rice the on future later the dctamtng conduct dat~s: It of authonlles the dctcnus. th~. chain to of form Pre\'entive detention orders events which, reasonable apprchensio considaed 10 i~. 1 ­~·olve forecasts. All that can b:: done is to give statement of an apprehensio Ill tryc form of ground~ ?~to wJ:!at the deten~ is likely to do having.regard to th~ parllc ul:~rs of P•~st actl\' lllc~. wh!ch may be g1ven so that preventh·e detention for Oil:! ~f th_c Plll'poses for whcch It c01n be on.ler~d is sh·)wn t() h.we b~com;: neces-sary 10 h1s C<L~e. Th~ grounds and partkulars mu;t have rational ncXUi with thcso purpo~cs. that IS. they must be relevant. [JJC-D.Fj .

• E~1im St•n. v. Stall' of P11ttinb, ll952] S.C.R. 18 anJ Rameslnvar Shaw Dtstncl MnJ:tslraU, Bnrdwan .1 .Anr., (1964) 4 S.C.R. 921, referred to.

(f) ,\ distinction.b~tween grounds which are merely vacuc an:l th<X¢ which ar~ .::xtrancous and Irrelevant should· not be ovalooked. Further particulars can be ask~d for by the detenu and supplied by th:: detaining authority to cur.: th~ defect m vague ground, but an cxtr<meous ground vitiates ;he •Jet.ention orde:. If there is an extraneou, or irrelevant ground, the court cannot separate the Irrelevant from relevant. The Court can only order relca:;e of the detenu .c becau~c an extraneous or irrelevant KJ'OUnd :ltf~cted the dcdsion to detain. (33G-H].

Tarapadt' De & Ors. v. Tltc Stall! of West Bengal. [1951] S.C.R. 212@ 218-219, followed.

~g) Dut, whether some of th~ grounds were only vagu~ or were irrelevant and extraneous to tbe purposc3 of th: Act. the dct.enu can make representation against them to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Bo:~.r..! bas full jurisdiction f) to dcclore detention invalid or to recommend, after excluding what may b,: v::suc or irrde\'ant, that the detention 5hould continue. [34FJ

(2) In those· cas.:s wh~re detention is vitiated only on the ground that parti· culars w~re not supplied at the earliest reaso!!ably possible opportunity so th:tr 1 he ri~ht of dctenu to make representation is held to be defeated. the det~n­tion would, strictly speaking, not be vitiated ab-initio, but, it would becom~ illegJJ only from the time v.hen the infring;:m.!"ot of th~ right to sufficient parti-culars to make u rcpr~sentu.tion takes place. In the present case, Government has 6ati~(actorily explained the time taken in considering tho detcnu·s represen-tation, and, therefore, it could not be said then: was an undue delay whrch dc-f<!ated the right of the detenu to make repr.:sentation. The representation, ~how that the petitioners had disputed every single fact and made detailed allc· g-.1tion~ justifying the possession of the· rice. Therefore. Govemm~nr naturnllv h:ld to take some time to \'erify the stat.emenu of th.: petitioners. [340-H; 3SE-F]

/Jubul Mitra v. Sratt ci Wrsl Bt•ngal & Ors. A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 197, Khaidam tbodta Sin~;h <'tc, v. Starr of Ma11ipur, 1197::!1 I S.C.R. 1022 and D,·oJI<Jrayan r .\fandul v. Siah' of War Bt'n);al. A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1353, referred to. . (3)(a) Jt could not be said that the ddaining authority bad not applied hi' mind, on the contention that the allegations made against the petitioners were not tme. It is not for this Court to consider the correctness or othet'·;o;o of th~ a\'icrrion~ made on questioll:l of fad in the returo, fili:J 1:-y the Go11!rnmenr. b) IL could not also ~ saicl that the detaining authority had not applied ih mind, becau~e the Go\'ernm~nt bad tak.c:n n~arly thr~e weeb to verify tlh: •kt;ril~. Ho that, it mu~t !>::- pr!!»Um~ that they were not there befo~e the det~n­tion W;l~ ordered. The u • .n·rrnment could no_t _be presumed to be ~~ posseSSIOn of all the fact~ taken int~.> a-....::ount by the ~d;umng officer. The det:umng officer h:W not comultcJ the Government before ordering detention. Therefore, th~ time wken by the Government in m:tldng the inqu~ries onlv shoW<; that ~overn; ment took care to verify the correctneu of alle~tahon~ made by the petmoner.. • or, in other words, that it, on the coouary, applied its mind to the facts of tho: case!. [36A-C)

( 4) In case of rreventive det~ntion wber~ fairly tria~le questiom of .fa.:t 11 or law, which cno be more appropoatelY gon.e. mto an•l d•!Cid~d ~v an Advt~Of't' Ronnl, ure rending lxfore the Board, the petition should be dism1s~ed a. prem:t-ture ou~ly excert protect in the very personal free-of exceptional circuxrutance8. .c!tiuns ag:~inst The :~rbitrary Court, no ?r doubt, unco?"~~~~~ltional m~st ~:~1-invasions of it bY uecutiv.: uuthorltte,. But, to do that, 1t 1s not n.-tssnry ll>

• , _ ,.... ,.._ •• -";:t· .

... "\" ' - -~--·--·--·- -:-- ·- . '! ... ·.:.....:.:-.. . . ·-·

T REPORTS ( 1974} 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COUR 6 I . ~~~ole or I ltifY det~nuon ca.~ "hat bY is, also. an in AdvtsoaiioW som.e Te~ate r:: pccts freely and Boa;d the legally the more which constSIC cou pr~~~ c~~c~nsiuer to . 'bed be with method the procedure the the path social of sutlictency consideration of for JUthcial !n~r~t:l protectJon ot wisdom. grounds p_reven-of the of ~·rsonalltbert~ detention ts to mean~o~nrls op safeguard, of dctenuon appears arcn~a~uch ue but greater othen a~prchende~l could ruscnably hano s;uisfy the dctatrung £,·en if some o~ the ~uthoritY anti-social acttvtt•es that, to. pr_evc of ·~'lr,g individual, grounds of hts det;enuon prev~ntJve should de.. tn $0dal ~.nod fro.m [1 ]the suffidcncy of the rcmat.th the duty to consHler the que3-tcntion is •mpeb~t~vc~~rmincd by those chargc~ei':rmine what really .and su~tan­bl! allowed to u- should not undertake to unds of detention. It tS onl_y wh.ere ''.On. quite an u:illy Val'llcne:.s elfecii\'C represen n .The IS ill~•ory onl_y Co or no 1ndeflnit~ness rtuestion ut tion nrea.soof nnble that suffic•eis the or diSclo~~ .ncy dctenuon whtc . rc. . of groh,ch w .. wou ~1 Y ld disables either b• -vitiated makes dctenu on [37-\ the such • -from &allsfactton l-1: • ground. 38A-B] mal:tnp; ~ t -.. Writ Petitions Nos. 1496 and 1497 vf ORIGL\;Al JURISDICTION • l ,. 1973. . th Constitution for issue of Writ in the · nature Untlct of habeas Arllcle corpus. 32 of N Mukherjee Dilip K. I Hazan,.; s .. ,V. an GdupNte, · RJ. · clj,:ud~:~ 1 ··"' 1 uzrtdr [·e ]ethe Petitioner (in \V.P. 1946/ i 73). J.P. Bhnttacharjee, D. N. ~fukherjee, Dzilp · · K . azan 'k nd N R · · ClwudluiT)', for the petitioner 111 (\V.P. No. L497 /_73) • Nirm De, ttcrney.Gcncral of India and Naurnt La{ for the res· pondcnts (in both the petitions). The Judgment of MATHEW and MUKHERJEA. JJ. was delivered by MATIIEW, J. dissenting openion was delivered by Beg, J. . MAmEw, J. The petitioners question the legality of the orders of detention dated 25-7-1973 passed by the District Magistrate, Kamrup, under s.3(2l(a) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. 1971, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", and pray for issue of writs in the n4ture of habea1 corpus. Th~ order~ of detention state that the detaining authority is satisfi~d tha! w;t!l VJew to prevent the petitioners from acting in manner prcJUdJcJ~l I? the rnamtenance of supplies and services essential to the com~unt~y tn Ka~rul? ~is~ct, it . is necessary that they should b.; dctarned tn Gauhali Jail Wttb unmcdmtc effect until further ordas. ~dd•lional <;>:t 30·7-1.97?, Dtstnct the Magistrate. pctilionm surrendered themselves On th~: sarue day each of bdore the pcti-tile Jo~cr~ was served wi_th the order of detention and :Uso the grounds of e~~~~~n~~fi~~c~g~~t ~h letterd .informing ~im of his right to make ment or cr of dctcnt1on to the State Gov-:rn· The grounds of detention , 1 IJ.:orah read 35 follows : serve upon the petitioner Pn1bhu Daya ~r. ~fls. "That Dcora you, being Flour and Ric one of th PM~ncrs . and m the active . management Snn.vas. ~asudeo, Fane nadrc Ills, ~00 Road, Gauhati and Mfs. Tlsed lllllhng of paddy ~n M; ' ~uhah arc responsible for unautho-Roa~. Gaubati and smugglin ~~ ora flour and Rice Mills at Zoo c:!mmg undue profit y the resultant rice to M..:ghalaya for · ou arc also responsible for unauthorised II I ./'

hoarding of rice and sugar in the premises of M/s. Deora Flour and Rice Mills at Zoo Road and M/s. Srinivas B~udeo at Fancy Bazar for the sole purpose of selling these commodities at higher prices in and outside Gauhati for profiteering. .

"On 25-7-1973 the following quantities of paddy and rice were unearthed and seized from your unauthorised possesston at 1.J:Jo Road (Deora Flour and Rice Mills) premises.

"That on 4-1-1972, 191 bags of sugar were seized by the Supply Officials Qf Gauhati from your unauthorised possession at Messrs. Basudeo, Fancy Bazar, Gauhati.

"That on 16-5-1972 the supply officials seized 105.03 quintala of rice from your unauthorised· possession at Messrs. Srinivas Basudeo, Fancy Bazar, Gauhati.

"That you indulged in ~uch trade activities which created acute · scarcity and high prices of rice and sugar in Gauhati market..

"You are, thus acting in manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community as whole in this district and your being at large has jeopardised the maintenance of such supplies and services to the communtty."

The grounds of detention served on the petitioner Raj Kumar Deorah read as follows :

''That you being close associate of Shri Prabhu Dayal Deora sfo Late Basudeo Deora of Zoo Road, Gauhati and in the active management of Basudeo, Fancy Bazar. Gauhati, are responsible for unauthorised milling of paddy in Messrs. Deora Flour and Rice Mills at Zoo Road, Gauhati and smuggling of the resultant rice to Meghalaya for earning un-due profit. You are also responsible for unauthorised hoard-ing of rice and sugar in the premises of Messrs. Deora Flour and Rice Mills at Zoo Road and Messrs. Srinivas Basudco at Fancy Bazar for the sole purpose of selling these com-modities at higher prices in and outside Gauhati for profit-cering. .

"That on 25-7-1973 the following quantities of paddy and rice were unearthed and seized from ·your unauthorised pos-session at Zoo Road Deora Flour and Rice Mills pre-mises)-

, ~-L447SupCI/74

[ 1974 ) 2 S.C.R.

··That on 4-1-1972, 191 bags of sugar were seized by the supply officials of Gauhati from your unauthorised posses-sion at Messrs. Srinivas Basudeo, Fancy Bazar, Gauhati.

"That on 16-5-1972 the supply officials seized 105.03 quintals of rice from your unauthorised possession at Messrs. Srinivas Basudeo, Fancy Bazar, Gauhati.

"That you indulged in such trade actiVities which created ::JCute scarcity and high prices of rice and sugar in Gauhati market

"You arc, thus acting in manner prejudicial to the main-tenance of supplies and services essential to the community as whole in this district and your being at large has jeo-pardized the· maintenance of such supplies and services to the community." ·

On 5-8-1973. each of the petitioners sent his representation to the State Government through the jail authorities of Gauhati raising vari-·OUs grounds against the validity of the order of detention. Both representations were rejected by the State Government on 28·8-1973 and their cases, together with their representations were sent by the . State Government to the Advisory Board constituted under s.9 of th~ Act.

Three contentions have been advanced on behaH of the petitioners in this Court: (!) that the grounds of detention were vague and so 'the petitioners were denied of their constitutional right to make effect-ive representations against tbe orders m detention: (2) that there was inordinate delay in disposing of the representations by the Govern-ment and that was sufficient to vitiate the detention of the petitioners, and ( 3) that .the detaining authority did not apply its mind to the fac!s nf the cases to find out whether it was necessary to detain the peti-tioners for preventin~ them from acti~ in manner prejudicial to the· maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.The first ground for detention· states that the petitioners are r:s-ponsible for unauthorised milling of paddy in Deora Hour and Rice Mills and smuggling the resultant rice to Meghalaya for selling it for earning- undue profit. The period during which the unauthorised millin~ of paddy has been carried on was not stated in the grounds of detention nor is there anything to indicate when ilnd how the re~ultailt' rice was smuggled to Meghalaya for earning undue profit. The fact that the grounds communicated to each of the petitioners men· tion the seizure of paddy and rice from the unauthorised possession of the petitioners from the mill in question on 25-7-1973 gives no particulars as regards unauthorised milling of paddy or the smuggling of the resultant rice to Mcghalaya for earning undue profit. The first ground of ·detentiOn was, therdore, vague and that is sufficient to vitiate the detention orders.

The learned Attorney General, appearing for the respondents diJ not contend that the first ground of detention. taken by itself, was not vague, if smuggling of_ rice to Meghalaya referred to the past acti-vities of the petitioners. But he said that the reasonable way . to

understand that ground is to read it in such. way as to imply that the smugglin~ of the resultant rice to Meghalaya was ·for earning un-due profit and that smugglin~ was only the purpose for which unautho-rised milling of paddy was done. ·In the. return filed on behalf of !h(: icsporidents, this is how the ground is read :

"Detailed particulars have been given in the grounds as n to the- detection of unauthorised paddy and milled rice in the locked godowns of M/s. Deorab Rtce and flour Mills, Gauhati :and in view of the circumstances stated in the pre-vious paragraphs, the purpose of hoarding rice and milling paddy in unauthorised manner was to smuggle the goods for utulue profits. The ground clearly and unambiguously states that the ·petitioner is responsible for unauthorised milling of paddy in M/s. Deorah Rice and Flour Mills at Zoo Road, Gauhati fer the purpose of smuggling the rice to Meghalaya for earning undue profits. The materials on which the latter part of the grounds i.e. smuggling of result-:\nt rice to Meghalaya for earning undue profits is based arc the materials which have been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs and, as held earlier by this Hon'ble Court, arc n not necessary to be mentioned in the grounds''.There can be no doubt that the first ground postulated that the ]'1.!titiOI\Cts were indulging in unauthorised milling o( paddy and also in smuggling the resultant rice to Meghalaya for earrun~ undue profit. As already stated no particular instance· of smuuJing was given, nor the period during which the. smuggling operation· waa carried on m~n · tioncd in the ground. We could have understood the contention i)F· the learned Attorney General if the ground had stated that the peti-tioners were responsible for unauthorized milling of paddy and that was ·for the purpose of smuggling the resultant rice to Meghalaya for ~arning undue profit. Then it could have been said that no particulars about the smuggling would be available as it was only natural inference . of the .purpose of the unauthorized milling of paddy, We would have to :1dopt the vocabulary of humpty dumpty if we are to read the ground in fhe way in which it has been read in the return filed on behalf of the respondents. We have no hesitation in ho!dirtg that the fir~t ground is an independent ground and refers to th(p~t activities of the petitioners nanlely unauthorised miUin'-t of, paddy :irld. the smuggling. of the .res:ultant nee to Meghalaya for earnmg undue .profit. · It was said that grounds are nothing but "conclusion of facts and not complete recital of facts'' and when article 22(5) of the Consti-tution says that the grounds on which the detention order has been made must. be communicated to the detenu it can only mean that the detaining authority must supply him with his conclusions of facts and the dictum of Kania, CJ., writing for the majority, in the Staff ?1 Bomb(ly v. ,Atnza Ram Sridhar ~aidya(l) was cited in support of • t. But we thmk that the learned 1udge was careful enough to point out that if the representation has to be intelligible to meet the charges contained in the grounds, the information conveyed must be sufficj~nt (I) [19SJ] S.C.R. 167, at 178.

to attain that end. In other words, the majority decision in that case wumed that the reqUirement of article 22(5) will not be satisfied uruess the detenu is gtven the eaniest opp(>ctunity to make repre· sentation against the detention and that no opportunity to make the representation can be etfec.ive unless the detenu is furnished with adequate particulars of the grounds of detention.

In Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj v. The State o1 Delhi and Otl~ersl1 ) Patanjali Sastri, J. speaking for the Court assumed that in Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya's Case([2 ]) the majority decision was that the detenli has the right to be furnisned witn full particUlars to make an eftective representation. The Court also said that the constitutional requirement must be satisfied in respect of each of the grounds communicated.

As one of the grounds communicated to the petitioners is found to be vague, the detention orders must be pronounced to be bad on the basis of series of decisions of this Court (see The State of Bt>mbay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya(l); Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj v. The State of Delhi and Others([2]); Motilal laill v. The State of Bihar(~)~ and Mishrilal Jain v. The Distr.ict Magistrate, Kamrup and others(•). These decisions followed the decision of the Federal Court in Keshav Tnlpade v. Emperor (6) where it was said:

"If detaining authority gave four reasons for detaining man, without distinguishing between them, and any two or three of the reasons are held to be bad, it can never be cer-tain to what extent the bad reasons operated on tbe mind of the authority or whether the detention order would have been made at all if only one or two good reasons had been before them."

We cannot predicate that if the fust ground was excluded, the detaining authority would have passed the order. The fact that one of the grounds mentions that paddy and rice had been unearthed and seized from the unauthorized possession of the petitioners from the rice mill in question on the date of the detention order would not necessarily lead to the inference that the petitioners have been indulg-ing in unauthorized milling of paddy, much less that they were smuggl-ing the resultant rice to Meghalaya for earning undue profit. It cannot, therefore, be said that the first ground, namely, that the petitioners are responsible for unauthorised milling of paddy and smuggling of the resultant rice to Meghalaya for earning undue profit, is conclusion ·reached from the fact of seizure of paddy and rice on 25-7-1973 or the seizure of rice on 16-5-1972 "from their unauthorized posses-sion at Messrs. Srinivas Basudco, Fancy Bazar, Gauhati."

These are not only cases where one of the grounds of detention was vague, but also cases where the detaining authority did not apply its mind at aU to one of the grounds of detention. If the detaining authority had no particulars before it as regards the smuggling opera-tion, how was it possible for it to have been satisfied that the petitioners

(2) [1951] s. c. R 167 at m. (4) [1971] 3 s.c.c. 693.

(I) [19531 S.C.R. 708. (3) [19681 3 S.C.R. 587. (5) A.T.R. 1943 F.C.1, ar R.

P. D. DF.OR.AH v. DIST· MAGISTRATE (Mathew, /.)

were smuggling rice to Meghalaya for earning undue profit ? U there was any particular instance of smuggling of the kind in the mind of the detaining authority, it would have been possible for it to specify th;: particular instance at least in the grounds.

We think that the fact that the Advisory Board would have to con-sider the representations of the petitioners where they have also raised the contention that the grounds are vague would not in any way prevent n this Court from exercising its jurisdiction under article 32 ot the Con-stitution. The detenu hJS rignt under article 22(5) of the Constitu-tion to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making representation against the order of detention. Th Jt constitutional right includes with-in its compass the right to be furnished with adequate particulars of the grounds of the detention order. And, if their constitutional right Is violated, they have every right to come to this Court under article 32 complaining that their detention is bad as violating their fundamental right As to what 'the Ad\isory Board might do in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not the concern of this Court. This Court is only con-cerned with the question whether any of the 2rPunds cPmmun:cJted to the petitioners was vague which would preclude them from making an effective representation. We do not thiD.k ~t because the represcn~· tions of the petitioners are pending ~onsideration before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board would also go into the question of th;; vagueness of the grounds communicated to them, this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under article 32. In other WIOrds we cannot agree with the proposition that because the Advisory Board was sclzcd of the matter when the 'Mit petitions were filed and would also con· sider the contention of the .petitioners in their representations that the grounds were vague. we should not interfere with the orders of deten-tion on the ~re that one of the w-ounds communicated .to the tx:li-tioners was va_ple.The Attorney General strongly relied on the decision of this Court in Lawrence Joachim Joseph D'Souza v. The-State of Bombay(t). There it was held that if the ·nature of the activity for whk.h dttention was ordered wa~ such that no better particulars could be given. the _ deteution order cannot be struck down as bad. In that case the grotmd of detention was that with the financial help of the Portuguese Govern-cent tho petitioner there was carrying on espionage activities with the . help of underground \\"Orkers and that be was also collecting intell' gence about seturity arrangements on the border area and was ma.kh.g the · intelligence available to .the Portuguese authorities. In answer to the contention that the ground was vague as no {larticulctrs were furnished, the Court first referred to the majority dccis1on in Atma Ram SridluJr Vaidyds Case([2]) as laying down that the constitutional right of cletenu under article 22(5) consists of two components, namely, the right to be furnished with the grounds of detention and the right to be afford~ the ·~arl!est ?Pportun}ty for making .represe!ltation a~inst the detention which unphes the nght to be furnished Wlth adequ~te parti· culars of the grounds of detention to enable proper representation bein~ II made and ·then said (at p. 391) :~ . · "'Ibese rightS involve correspc)nding obligations on tho part of the detaining authority. It follows that the authority (I) [1956) S.C.R. 382:" (2) [19.51] s:c.R.167&1 178. _,.

under constitutional obligation· to furnish rca.sonubly definite grounds, as well as adequate particulars then and there, or shortly thereafter. But the right of the detenu to be furnished particulars, is subject to the limitation under article 22(6) whereby disclosure of facts considered to be against public interest cannot be required. It is however to be obser-ved that under article 22(6) the facts which cannot be requi-red to be disclosed are these "which such authority consider' to be against public interest to disclose.''

No question of public interest is involved in the case in hand. At any rateJ no such plea has been put forward in the return. Whether w-: would lwvc harkened to any such plea in this case, if 'put forward, is ;.mother matter. Any gencntl observations in that judgment will hJ\'e to be read in the li.ght of the paramount consideration o( publil: interest involved therein.

Nor are we satisfied that the fact that the petitioners could haw :iskcd for further partculars but that they did not do so, would be enou&h to salvage the orders of detention. The right to call for parti<:ulars has b~cn recognized in Alma Ram Sridhar Vaidya's Case (1} as ftowiog from the constitutional right to be afforded reasonable opportunity to •1akc representation. This Court said in Lawrence Joachim Joseph D' Souuts Casee) that if the grounds are n;Jt sufficient to enable the <Lknu to make representation, the dctenu, ii he likes may ask for particulars which would enable him to make the representation am! the fact that he had made no such application for particulars is, cir-cumstance which may well be taken into consideration, in decidin~ whether the grounds can be considered to be vague.

If ground communicated to the dctenu is vague·, the fact that th~ detenu could have, but did not, ask for further particulars inunaterial. That would be relevant only for C'Jnsidering f~c qu sfon whether the ground is vague or not.

ln this view of tqe matter, we do not think it necessary to consider the question whether the disposal of the representations by the Govern-ment was inordinately delayed and for that reason the detention order~· are vitiated. Nor is it necessary for us to consider the other question whether the detaining authirity did apply its mind to the other grounds ~mentioned in tbe grounds communicated to the petitioners.

The facLS of the cases might induce mournful reflection how Wl hvriest attempt by an authority charged with the duty of taking pru-. phylactic measure to secure ~e maintenance of supplies and scn·ic.:l-cssential to the community has been frustrated by what is popularly called technical error. We say, and we think it is necessary to repeat. that the gravity of the evil to the community resulting from anti-social activities can never furnish an a<!_equate reason for invading the per-sonal· liberty of citizen, except in accordance with the procedur.: established by the Constitution and the laws. The history of pcrsonul liberty is largely the history of insistence on observance of proccdur~. Observance of procedure has been the bastion against wanton assaults

0) [195l} S,C.R. 1~7. at 178.

C!) [195!i] S.C.R. 382.

·- --1~

on pcr~onaJ liberty over the years. Under our Constitution, the only guarantee of personal liberty for person is that he shall not be dep-rived of it except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The need today for maintenance of supplies nnd services essential to the community cannot be over~emphasized. There will be no social security without maintenance of adequate supplies and services essen tial to the community. But social security is not the only goal of good society. There are other values in society. Our country is taking singular pride in the democratic ideals enshrined in its Consti· tution and the most cherished of these ideals is personal liberty. It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of social security, we woul(.] s<mction the subversion of this liberty. We do not pause . to consider whether social security is more preci-c ou~ than personal liberty in the scale of values, for, any jmlgnwnt as regards that would be but value judgment on which opinions might differ. But whatever be its impact on the mainten-ance of supplies and services essential to the community, when cer-t:tin procedure is prescribed by the Constitution or the laws for dep-riv~ug citizen of his personal liberty, we think it our duty to see that that procedure is ngorouslv ohserve<.l, however str:~nge· this might () sound to some ears.

The petitioners are entitled to be released from custody. We make thl! rule nisi absolute and order the immediate release of the petitioners from custody. · ·

BEG, J. The petitioners Prabhu . Dayal Dl!orah and Raj Kumar . Deorah, have filed separate petitions for writs of habeas corpus and orders ·of release after investigating questions raised by them ~gainst their detention orders dated 25-7-1973 made folloWing Police raid on 25-7-1973 at the stores of the Dcorah Flour anJ Ric; Mills at Zoo Road, Gauhati. The identically worded orders of the District Mqis-trate, Kamrup, against the1n state that the detaining authority is satis~ tied that, with view'. to preventing them from acting in manner prejudical to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the wmmu111ty in the Kamrup District; it is necessary that they be detain-ed at Gauhati Jail with immediate effect until further orders. The orders mentioned that they are being passed under Section 3(2)(a)<of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The orders also intimate that grounds of detention 11ill he served on the detcnus within_five days.On 30-7-1973, soon after each petitioner had surrender((] in the . Court of Magistrate on that very date, the District Magistrate, Kam-rup, sent the grounds of detention to each petitioner with letter inform-ing the detenu of his right to make representation agaiQSt the order ll by which he had been detained and also that he has right, if he so desires, to appear before the Advisory Board, to which his case would b.: submitted within thirty days of the detention.

The grounds of detention served upon Prabhu Dayal Deorab on the afternoon of 30-7·1973 read as follows:

"That you, being one of the partners and in the active management of M/s. Deora Flour and Rice Mills, Zoo Road, Gauhati and Mjs. Srinivas Basudeo, Fancy Bazar, Gauhati are responsible for unauthorised milling of paddy in M/s. Doora Flour and Rice Mills at Zoo Road, Gauhati and smug-gling of the resultant rice to Megbalaya for earning undue profit. You are also responsible for unauthorised hoardinJ~; of rice and sugar in the premises of M/s. Deorah Flour and Rice Mills at Zoo Road and Mjs. Srinivas Basudeo at Fancy Bazar for the sole purpose of selling these commodities at higher prices in and outside Gauhati for profiteering.

That on 25· 7 • 73 the following quantities of paddy and rice were unearthed and seized from your unauthorised poa.. session at Zoo Road (Deora Flour and Rice Mills) premises,

That on 4-1-1972 191 bags of sugar were seized by the Supply officials of Gauhati from your una'lth'Jrised posses·· sion at Messrs. Srinivas Basudeo, Fancy Bazar. Gauhati.

That on 16-5-72 the Supply officials seized J05.03 quintals of rice from your unauthorised possession at Messrs. Srinivas Basudeo, Fancy Bazar, Gauhati.

That you indulged· in such trade activities which created acute scarcity· and high prices of rice and sugar in Gauhati market. •

• You are, thus acting in manner prejudicial to the main-tenance of supplies and· services essential to ~ community aa whole in this· district and your being at large has jeopat· dised the main~ance of such supplies and services to the community.

The grounds of detention served on the afternoon of 30-7-1973 upon Raj Kumar Deorah read as follows :

"That you being close associate of Shri Prabhu Dayar Deora S(o Late B1sudev Deora of Zoo Road. G:~u'hat; and in the active management Basudeo, Fancy Bazar, Gauhati, are responsible for unauthorised milling of paddy in Messrs. Deora Flour and Rice Mills at Zoo Road. Gauhati, and smuggling of the resultant rice to Meghalaya for earning un-

. . ...___.

due·profi.t. You are also responsible ~~r unauthorised hoard· ing of rice and sugar in the premises of Messrs. Deora Flour and Rice Mills at Zoo Road and Messrs. Srinivas Basudeo at Fancy Bazar for the sole purpose of selling these commodi-tie.~ at higher prices in and outside Gauhati for profiteering.

That on 4·1·72, 191 bags of sugar were seized by the supply officials of Gaubati from your unauthorised possession at Messrs. Srinivas Basudeo, Fancy'Bazar, Gauhati. .

. That on 1~5-72 the supPly officials seized 105.03 quin-tals of rice from your· unauthorised possession at Messrs. Srinivas Basudeo, Fancy Bazar. Gauhati.

That you indulged . in such trade activities which created acute scarcity and bigh prices of rice and sugar in Gaubati market.

You nre, thus acting in manner prejudicial to the main-tenance of supplies arid services essential to the community as whole in this District and yoiir being at large has jeopardi-zed the maintenance of such supplies and services to the com· munity. ,-

District Magistrate . . Kamrup" • .

. On .5-8·1973, Prabhu Dayal Deorah sent his representation to the State Government through the Iall authorities of Gauhati. He alleged in his Habta.J CorpUJ petition dated 13-8·1973 to this Court that his representation had not been disposed of by the State Government till then. Apart from complaining· that the grounds served upon him were 5o vague and dcvoi4 of particulars as to nullify his constitutional right of making represeritation against the order of detention, be also all~ that, as criminal pr~ution had commenced· against him on 28-i-1973, for the alleged unauthorised possession of hoarded rice on 25·7-1973, detention order against him, on the basis of this allegationJ wmt ille~ as the charge against him could be dealt v.ith in the course of the criminal prosecution. The petitioner denied the correctneu of thC allegation that he had hoarded tice in an unauthorised fashion. He efaimed to have the authority to keep the rice in question at Zoo Road, Gauhati, ·on the ground: ·

"That the aforesaid Deorah Riee and Flour Mill used to get paddy from Food Corpora~ion of India for the purpose

of. milling and the said mill did rice milling job only as Hcencee under the Rice Milling (Regulation) Act of paddy allotted by the Food Corporation of India and given for the purpose of milling by othei: authorised persons".

As regards 191 bags of sugar seized on 4-1-1972 from Mjs. Srinivas Basulko, Fancy Bazar; Gauhati, of which ;U.c;o Prabhu Dayal Deorah was partner, the petitioner"'Claimed that it was covered by licenc~! · (Annexure 'g' to the petition), the annexed copy of which showed that it was provisional licence renewed on 27-3-1973 retrospectively. for the years 1971 and l 9 72. According]y to the detaining authorities this did not prevent the possession of sugar seized from being unauthorised nt the time of its seizure. As regards 1(}5.03 quintals of rice seized on 16-5-72, the petitioner denied "any seizure of rice from the unauthorised possession of M/s. Srinivas Basudeo on 16-5-72". He went on to explain that, as the firm had licence for dealing in rice, the possession of it could not be unauthorised. In this way, at least the seizw·e of rice was admitted, but, what was disputed was that its possession was· unauthorised on 16-5-72. The reply of the detaining authorities, set out in the affidavit of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, was that there was no licence for this rice and that this was released only" after warning and directions were given to the petitioner as to how it should be .dealt with.Raj Kumar Deorah had denied connection with both the partner-ships mentioned above. It is, however, clear from the affidavit IDed in r~ply that he was found at the premises at the time of the sei7ure on 25-7-1973, He also repeated the explanations given by Prabhu Dayal Dcorah such as that the rice was held on behalf of the Food Corporation of India or of M/s. P. K. Gogoi & Co., or "other authorised persons". The detaininr, authorities had found the allegations to be false after contactirig the Food Corporatioh and M/s.· Gogoi & Co. It was also revealed by the returns made in this Court that the petitioners, who were present when the stores wen~ raided, had run away from the premi .. ses on on·e pretext or another and that nobody there could ex~am how the storage of all the rice found board!d was authorised. The rep-lies filed also showed that the sources of the total quantities seized hau remained unexplained and that the quantities recovered were not shown to be covered by required authority or licences under the law.

The petitioners had tried to controvert the allegations made against them by the detaining authority but had not succeeded in satisfyinJ; the Government of Assam about the correctness of their !!tands eith~r on questions of fact or of law raised by them. Their lengthy representa-tionS" submitted to the Govt. on 6-8-1973 . bad been rejected on 28-8-1973, by the Govt. of Assam after due inquiries into allegations made by the petitioners. Their cases, with their representations, had been sent by the Government of Assam to the Advisory Board con~ stitut¢ under Section 9 of the Act. The Advisory Board, befor.) which the petitioners' cases are pending, had the jurisdiction to cnnS'dcr all the contentions of the detenues on questions of fact and law arising in their cases. The ·Board had to report to the Government within t('n weeks from the date of detention "as to whether there is or not

.4 ~uHici~nt cnuse for the detention of the person concerned''. Th~ recommendation of the Advisory Board to release detenu wils binding. on the Government.

The relevant provisions of the Act regulating the procedure ant.!. r,m:rs of' the Board may ~c set out here:· ·

''Sec. 10. Reference to AdvisoryBoard.-SJVe as other" wise expressly provided in this Act, in every case where detention order has been made under this Act, the appro· priatc Government shall, within thirty days from the date of detention under the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted by it under Section 9 the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order, and in case where the order has been made by an officer, also the rep<?rt by such oftker under subsection (3) of Section 3. ·

11. Procedure of Advisory Boards.-( 1) The Advisory Bourd shall after considering the materials placed before it and, after calling for such further information it may deem necessary from the appropriate Government or from any per-son called for the purpose through the appropriate Govern-ment· or from the person concerned, and if, in- any particular .. ·ase, it considers it essential so to do or if ·the person con-cerned desires to be heard, after hearing him in person, submit its report to the appropriate Government \\'ithin ten weeks from. the date of detention.

(2) The report of the Advisory Board shall specify in s~arate part thereof the opinion of the Advisory Board as tOJ whether· or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of ihc person concerned.

(3) When there is differc_nce o[ ·opinion antong the· members forming the Advisory Board, the opinion of the· :ri1ajority ·of such members shalf be deemed to be the opinion: of the Board.

( 4) Nothin~ in this section shall entitle any person against wbom detention order has been made to a~ar by any . . lc&al practitioner in any matter connected with the referene\:· to the Advisory Board, and the proceedings of the Advisory Board and its report, excepting that part of the report in< whi~h the opinion of the Advisory Board is specified, shall .be confidential

. 12. Action upon the repo.rt of Advisory Board.-(1 )' ~n.any c~ ~here the. Advisory Board has ·r~ported that there· 1s tn 1ts opmton suffictent cause for the detention of person,. the appropriate Government may confirm the detention order . and ·continue the detention of the person concerned for such ·period ns il thinks fit · . .

(2) In any case where the Advisory Board has reported :that there is in its opinion no sufficient cause for the detention ·of the person concerned, the appropriate Government shall .revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released iorth with".

Three contentions have been advanced on behalf of the petitioners in an attempt to assail the legality of their detentions. They are : firstly, that the grounds are too. vague and indefinite so that the detention orders are vitiated particularly because the Constitutional right of making an effectual representation against the detention orders is defea-ted; secon~y, that there was inordinate delay in disposing of the rep-resentations of the petitioners which, by itself, was enough to vitiate the continued detention of the petitioners; and, thirdly that the detain· ing authorities had not· applied their minds to the facts of the cases with view to determining the need for detainin~ the petitioners for prevent· ing them from acting in any manner preJudicial to the "mainte-nance of supplies and services essential to the community". I will take up each of these three grounds seriatim. ,On the first question, there is considerable dispute between tb~ two sides as to whether any ground is really vague. The learned Attor-ney General conceded that the first two par graphs of the groun~s would be vague if they were to constitute separate grounds and were to be consi-dered in isolation from the succeeding paragraphs giving · particulars. 'I'hil, however, is not, according to the Attorney General, the correct way of reading the document constituting the grounds with their particular~.>. it is submitted that it is obvi0us that the first two sentences 1re conclu-sions based upon the particulars of recoveries made from the premises of M/s. Deorah Flour and Rice Mills at Zoo Road, Gauhati, and of Mjs. Srinivas Basudeo at Fancy Bazar, Gauhati. The alleged tesponsi· bllity of the petitioners for smuggling to Meghalaya, where it was being sold at ftigher rates, was said to be nothing more than reason· able inference from patent facts. Similarly, the last two paragraphs, alleging indulgence in "trade activities which created scarcity and 'high prices of rice and sugar in Gauhati Market" and the prejudice caused to the "maintenance of supplies and services essential to the 4:ommunity as whole in this district" and the effect of leaving the petitioners "at large" are said to be inferences ,and forecasts resulting from particulars of recoveries of rice and sugar said to have been found hoarded in an unauthorised manner at the times and places shown there. The three dates on which recoveries of hoarded sugar and rice were made, that is to say, 4·1·1972, 16·5·1972, and 25·7-1973. were stated. The places from which the recoveries were made are also clearly specified. The quantities of rice and sugar recovered on each occasion are given. So far as the recovery of rice on 25-7-1973 is concerned, the five qualities of rice recovered arc also mentioned. It was this particular, about qualities of rice which made it possible to say that no p~rt of the rice recovered could be part of "Winter Lahi Paddy" allotted to the Deorah FJour and Rice Mills by the Food Corporation of India at Gauhati. .

It has'been very fairly and properly conceded by the learned Coun-.,cl for petitioners that seriously disputed questions of fact cannot b.:-

P, D. DEORAH V, DIST, M\AGISTRATE (Beg, /.)

properly decided by this Court upon. writ petition under Article 32: -of the Constitution. Moreover, it lies within the po~er and province of the detaining authorities to investigate and oonsider the correct· ness of tne exp1anat1ons g1Ven by· the de tenus of the· recover • ..s made. It is apparent that they have not accepted the versions of the petl~ tioners e1ther about the sources of supplies of the quantlLes ot sugar and ri~ shown to have been recovered or about the alleged authority or licence possessed by the petitioners at the times when the recoveries. were made. They ·had also not accepted the correctness_ of the asser-tion ol Raj Kumar Deorah ·that he had nothing to do with the two partnership firms involved. We are unable~ upon the materials _on record and in the proceedings before us pow, to declare that the allegations constituting the grounds of detention arc baseless. Nor does that :really fall \\ithin our province . to determine. We can, however, go into the question whether the grounds are so . vague ·as to disable the petitioners from making effective representations against the deten-tion orders or otherwise vitiate the detention orders.U we accept: the interpretation put by the Attorney General upon. the grounds of detention, they could not be said to be vague although. they could be said to be badly drafted. The sentences at the beginning and end of the document stating the grounds in each case apparently constitute the conclusions or ·interences reached from the particulars giv~n in the body of the document. I do not see why the basic princi- · pie that document. in order to correctly understand its meaning, should be read as whole should not be applied here. After pernsing tbe copies of the lengthy exPlanations submitted by the petitioners· to the Government. where, after asserting that they were ·unable to ·understand or make representations against the grounds of detention, because of vagueness, they proceed to refute the allegations of fact contained in the particulars of the recoveries made; it is · difficult to see how the petitioner were really prejudiced by the alleged. vagueness or infirmity in drafting the grounds.

Assuming, however, that there was some infirmity. ·or vagueness in some parts of the documents containing the grounds, can it be said ·that it w-as of such kind as ·to vitiate the detention orders? This Court,· following the principles laid down in Keshav. Talpade v .. ·· f:mperor,(l) bas held in some cases that even if some of the grounds are vague the detention is vitiated. I am, respectfully, unable to concur with this view • . The principle laid down in Talp~e's case case (supra) was with refe-

v .. ··

. The principle laid down in Talp~e's case case (supra) was with refe-rence to grounds, some of which were good and the others extraneom to the purposes for which detention could be ordered. Moreover, there was no question there of scrutiny of grounds by an Advisory Board · which could separate the good from the bad.

The Federal Court .said (at page 8) :--

. ••If detainin.2 authntitv gives four reasons for detaining man, without distinguishing between- them, · and any two ---(I) A.I.R. {1943] F.C. p. 1 and p. 8.

or three oi the reasons arc held to be. bad, i't can never be certain to what extent the bad reasons operated on the mind of the authority or whether the detention order would have . been made at all if only one or two. gotX! reasons had been before tbem.

The cases cited before us to eontend that vagueness of. grounds given for detention would vitiate detention orders were : Dr. Ram ~rishan Bhardwaj v. The State. of Delhi & Ors.(1) Moti/al Jain v. State, of Bihar & Ors.;([2]) Misluila/ lain v. the District ·Magis· -trate, Kamrup & Ors.(a) Rameshwar La1 Patwari v, State of Bihar;(') ~1nd the State of Bombay v. Alma Ram Sridhar Vaidya.e).

the BombJ.y High Court had a!:owcd grounds did not '!ive the time,

In V~it,lya's case (Supra) the BombJ.y High Court had a!:owcd .a Habeas Corpus petition because the grounds did not '!ive the time, place, and nature of the activities indulged .in by the petitioner so that ·his right to make representation was defeated, although, the Bom-bay High Court bad also held that the particulars, which were subse-quently supplied to the detenu by the Commissioner of Police, were ·cnougn to enable him to ·make an· effective representation. Ben~h of five Judges of this Court held that there had been no contraventiotl of the constitutional right to make representation. It was explained ·there that grounds which have to be communicated to the detenu were conclusions from facts, constituting particulars, all of which need not l>e conveyed to th~ detenu simultaneously. The particulars supplied subsequently were enough to remove the uncertainty from the ground~ . . 1f what may appear vague can be made. definite by supplying parti-. culars afterwards, it follows that, fortiori vagueness in tlle earUcr · ·or a11y other part of document may be removed by the partlcuta_rs C()ntained in the remaining parts of ·the very document containing gr<?unds.

It was also held by this Court in Lawrence Joachim Joseph IYS'ou;:a v. The State of Bombay,(G) tbat the detenu bas right to call for particulars. This implied that mere alleged vagueness of grounds or insutlidency of particulars, without ·calling upon the detaining autho-l'ity to remedy this defect, may not be enough to vitiate detention order.

In Ramesfnrar Lol Patwari's ~ase (Supra) reliance was pli!~d en %ibban Lal Saksena v.State of U.P.,([1]) and Keshav Tmpad' v. King Emper~r's case (Supra), but aU Jhe grounds were found to be vitiated. It was held after examining one ground after. anotbcr (at -p;~ge 514) :

. ''In this case at least two grounds are vague, one ground is found to be false and of the remainin~ in one there is no explanation and in the other there is lame . excuse that the driver of tbc truck did not furnish the full information.

(I) (1953) S.C.R. p, 708. (2) ll968l (J) S.C.R. J'l. 587. (3) (1'9711 (3) s.c.r, p. 693. (4) {1968] (2) s.c.R. 505. _(5) (1951] S.CR. !u7. (6) (1956] S.C.R. r> 382

(7) [195li S.C.R. 418.

The case is thus covered. by our ruling that where some grounds are found to be non-existing. or are canceUed or given· up, the detention cannot be. justified. It is further covered by our decisions that if the grounds are not suffi-ciently precise and do not furnish details for the purpose of making effective representation the detention can be ques-tioned".

Similarly, in Mishrilal Jain's case (Supra), although each of the two grounds was found to be vague, it was he1d, relying upon the cases of Rameshwar Lal Pcttwari (Supra), Pushkar Mukherjee & Ors. v . . Sta:e .of West Bengal(l), a::~d Motilal Jain's case (Supra), and Keshav Talpaik's case (Supra), that, even if one of the two grounds was vague, it would vitiate the detention. It was noticed, in tbis case, that the petitioner's contention was that he had no effective opportu-nity of making· representation because the grounds were vague. His complaint to the Govt., which incl~ded the grievance that the grounds were vague, had been rejected.

In Motilal Jain's case (Supra),.after examining the various cases decided ~ this Court, Bench of six Judges of this O,>urt held that the. grounds under consideratiOn there included one ground wbkh was vague and a_nother which. was non-existent with the result that the detenu did not get an effective opportunity to satisfy the Advisory Board about the insufficiency of the grounds of detention.

In Dr. Ram Krishan Bh/Jrdwaj's case (Supra)~ detention, under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act of 1952, was he14 to be vitiated on the ground that one of 'the grounds was vague so that his constitutional safeguard, by getting an opportunity of making representation against his detention had been impaired. This was . decision under the proy~sions of an enactment of 1952.

In none of the cases cited before . us was the question raised or decided whether, in case where representations including those against vagueness.of grounds,.were ma4e and were pending before-an Advisory Board, which bad full power to consider all objections on questions of fact and law and to reject any particular ground or grounds fbr vagueness or irrelevance ~nd to recommend appropriate action after considering whether the ·residue was sufficient for detention, the detenu could lle .held to have . b~en really deprived of the right to. make 'representation. It is true that the detenu has right. under Article 22{ 5) of tbe Colistitution to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making representation against the order. That· opportunity had been afford!!d to the detenus before us and they had made representa-tions which included the grievance that some of the grounds were so vague and indefinite so as not to be intelligible.With great respect for the views of my learned brethren, with which. I regretfully differ, it seems to me that the. question whether detenu was or was· not given due opportunity of making an effective represen-tation, in particular case, is largely question of fact which ·must"

(l) [1969] (2) S.C.R. 635 ..

be deeided after taking into account the totality of facts. It cannot be satisfactonly decided by mere.y looking at toe grounds of de~ntton in every case. There can be no really ·binding authOrity unless aome princ1p1e is. taid down on question which has to be detennined primarily on the particular facts of each case.

The Advisory BOard is given ten weeks' time from the date of detention, by provisions of Section tl( 1), to make its report. The validity of Section 11 ( 1 ). bas not been challenged before us on the ground of oonfiict with Article. 22( 5). The right of being afforded tbe earliest possible opportunity of making representation is one thing JlP-d the right of having it considered and d.CQded within a· patti~ cular ti,iP.e is another. llut, the right of making the representation can· not be construed so unreasonably as to practically demolish the un~ challenged power, under constitutionally valid statutory provision, to consider and decide the objections contained in representation. Therc? may be, occasionally, cases where the grounds of detention may, prili1a facie, show that the detention is invalid or ordered for some eoUateral purpose in excess of power to detain, or, the facts illdicating deDial of the right of making an effective representation· may be so ~tent and clur that it '?t'ould be an unnecessary prolQngation of an jllegal deten-: tion to wait for the opinion of the AdVIsory Board. Sueb cases would, however, be exceptional.

When the Advisory Board has full power to consider every kind of representation against grounds of detention, includillg grievance that any grounds are too vague or' indefinite to be understood or to enable detenu to make an effective representation, the detenue should ordinarily wait at least until the report has been made by tne Advisory Board before he complaints that he has been really deprived of any right under the Act. If the prOVisions of Seetion 11 ( 1 ) of the Act are valid he could not complain that he has been denied constitutional right of making representation merely because his case could remain pending for decision before an Advisory Board for ten weeks. More-over, that is not ground for assailing either of the two detentions 'be· fore us.

As .the -matter is pending before the Advisory Board, it is not really necessary for us to give definite or final opinion on the ques-tion whether any of the grounds supplied to the petitioners is vague. I also think that it is not· necessary to give decision, at this stage, on the correct interpretation to be placed upon the grounds of detentioa. I will content myself by indicating the lines on which cases like the ones before us should be decided.

I may mention here two cases cited by the Attorney General to submit how the grounds supplied may be interpreted. In Naresh Coondra Ganguli v. The SttJte of West Bengal & Ors,,(1) distinc-tion was made between the objects of detention, which sometimes find place in grounds, and the particulars which conta;.'l facts on which the grounds are bas~d. It was held here that the grounds. read in thc-

1) [19601 (I) s.c.R. 411.

~ ~·-·-

context of particulars supplied, were neither vague nor irrelevant. In Lawrence Joachim Joseph D'Souztis case (Supra), it was held that, having regard to the nature of the activity for which preventive deten-tion was ordered, no better particulars could be given.

It has to be borne in mind that preventive detention is not punitive detention. Hence, the mere fact that past occurrence, used for fore-casting probable future conduct of the detenu, could also be the sub-ject matter of prosecution for an offence,·would not affect the validity · of preventive detention. ·

Preventive detention orders Involve forecasts, in general terms, based on past c~nduct of which particulars can be given. It is cer-tainly not possible to give particulars of future anticipated conduct. Ali that can be done is to give statement of an apprehension in the form of grounds as to what the detenu is likely to do, having regard to the particulars of past activities which may be given, so that preventive detention, for one of the purposes .for which it can be ordered, is shown to have become necessary in his case. The grounds and particulars must necessarily have rational nexus with these purposes, or, in other words, must be relevant.

One of the questions argued was whether the reference to recovery of sugar so long ago as 4-1-1972 did not vitiate the detention order on the ground of its irrelevance. In reply, reliance was placed upon two <Jecisions of thi~ Court where it was held that mere references to past activities would not vitiate detention order as that is not irrelevant in forecasting future conduct. These cases were : Bhim Sen Vs. State of Punjab,(l) and Rameshwar Shaw Vs. District Magistrate, Burdli:aJt & Anr.([2 ])

The recovery of 199 bags of sugar on 4-1-1972 was not so remote as to be considered irrelevant, particularly as hoarded rice was also recovered on 16-5-1972, anq then, finally, came the discovery of hoard-F ed rice on 25-7-1973. It is this chain of events which, considered to-gether, enabled the detaining authorities to· form reasonable appre-hension as to the future conduct of the detenus.

distinction between grounds which are merely vague and those which are extraneous or irrelevant often tends to be over-looked. Parti-Cillars of vague grounds can be, as seen already, supplied even later so as to show that tne grounds were justified. If not supplied, the detenu can also ask for them. But, no amount of particulars of it would cure the defect of ground given which is extraneous to the purposes for which preventive detention may be ordered. Any such ground would vitiate the detention order at its inception. At any rate, this Court could not separate the extraneous or irrelevant ground from the proper and the relevant ones. It could only order the release of detenu because something extraneous to the legally authorised objects of detention had also affected the decision to detain.

0) l\952] S.C.R. 18.

(2) [19641 {4) S.C.R. 921.

4-L447Sup.CI/74

In Tarapade De & Ors. v. the State of West Bengal, {') Bench of five Judges of this Court explained the distinction between tbe vague grounds and irrelevant grounds and said that they do not stand 011 the same footing. It saidat page 218-219) :

"We are unable to accept the contention that 'vague grounds' stand on the same footing as 'irrelevant grounds'. An irrelevant ground has no connection at all \\ith the satis--faction of the Provincial Government which makes the order of detention. For the reasons stated in that judgment we · are also unable to accept the contention that if the grounds are vague and no representation is possible there can be no satisfaction of the authority as required under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act. This argument mixes up two objects. The sufficiency of the grounds, which gives rise to the satisfaction of the Provincial Government, is not matter for examination by the Court. The sufficiency of the grounds to give the detained person the earliest opportunity to make representation can be examined by the court, but only from that point of view. We are therefore unable to accept the contention that the quality and characteristic of the grounds should be the same for both testS. On the ques-tion of satisfaction, as has been often stated, one person may be, but another may not be, satisfied on the same grounds. That aspect however is not for the determination of the court. having regard to the words used in the Act. The secOnd part of the enquiry is clearly open to the court under article 22(5). We are therefore unable to accept the argument that if the grounds are not sufficient or adequate for making the representation the grounds cannot be sufficient for the subjective satisfaction of the authority".

It, however, seems to me that whether some of the grounds are merely vague or are irrelevant and extraneous to the purposes of the Act, the detenu can make representation against them in such way that it may be considered by the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board has full jurisdiction to declare detention invalid or to re-commend that, after excluding what may be vague or irrelevant, the detention should continue. So far as the Courts considering Habea.r Corpus petitions are concerned, they cannot enter into sufficiency of grounds for detention. They can only declare the detention vitiated on the ground that some of the grounds supplied are irrelevant or are so vague that no effective representation is possible against them. In those cases where detention is vitiated because particulars were not ~plied at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity, so that the right of detenu to make representation is ·held to be defeated and on no other ground, the detention would, strictly speaking, not be vitiated ab-initiQ, but, it would become illegal only from the time when the infringement of the right to sufficient particulars to make repre-sentation takes place. This takes us to the question whether the al-leged delay in considering the petitioners' representations was suffi.-{1) [1951] S.C.R. 212 @ 218-219

eient to vitiate their detentions on the grOund of infringement of their constitutional right to make representations against them.

In support of th~ second ground of attack-that the period of nearly three weeks taken by· the Govt. in rejecting the petitioners re~ presentations was so long as to defeat the right of petitioners to make representation-the decisions cited ·before·us on behalf of the peti-B tioners were; Babul Mitra v. State of West Bengal & Ors.,([1]) Khaiden Ibocha Singh etc, v. State of Manipur.(2) On the other hand, the learned Attorney General has relied on Deonarayan M ondal v. State of West Bengal(&) in which it was held that where the Govt. has satisfactorily · ~lained the time taken in considering the · detenue's representation, there could not be said to be an undue delay which defeated the right of detenu to make representation. In the cases before there is

In the cases before us, there is no complaint that the Govt. had not forwarded the petitioners' representations to the Advisory Board within reasonable time or that the Advi~ Board had taken an undu,ly long time over the petitioners• cases. As already indicated above, the Advisory Board is given ten weeks' time, under Section 11 ('1) of the Act, "ithin ~hich to make the report on detenu's ·case. If this provision is valid (it may be repeated that its validity is not challenged here), it could not be said that there is under delay in deciding a. case if there is no infringement of this provision. And, if there is an i!lfringement of this provision in case th.at would pro-vide an independent ground for invalidating the detention.

The only grievance .·or the petitioners id. this respect is . that the Govt. had deprived them of their rights of making representations be- · cause it took too long to reject their representations on 28-8-1973 during the pendency of their petitions in this Court. Copies of their representations to the Govt. :filed by the petitioners show that they .have disputed every single fact,· alleged illness, absence from Gaubati, given names of persons from whom the rice was alleged to have come, set up possession of licences to cover the quantities recovered in addi-tion to taking the plea of the vagueness of the grounds of detention. The Oovt ·of Assi)Dl would naturally take sometime to verify the cor-rectness. of the allegations of fact made by the petitioners: I find that the affidavits filed on behalf of the Govt. have sufficiently explained the delay ..

. <:omitig to the. last and tb.ird ground of attack, that the detaining authorities had not applied th!ir minds to the facts of the petitioners' cases, the basis of this attack is two fold : firstly, that the allegations made against the petitioners were not true; secondly, that the Govt. of Assam. bad taken nearly three weeks to verify the details, so that it must be presumed that they were not there before the detention was or,dered.

As regards ·the first of the two grounds, I have to repeat that it is not for this Court to consider; as rule, the correctness or otherwise of· the assertions made on questions of fact in the returns field. The (1) A.I.'R. 1973 S.G. 197: (2) [19731 {l) S.C.R. 1022 . .

(3) A.Ut 1973 S.C. 1353.

matter is still pending before the Advisory Board which can exai:nine them. We cannot, by holding that the cfetaining authorities bad come to some incorrect conclusion, infer that they must have failed to apply their minds to the allegations made and facts ascertained by them. Th~ detailed affidavits filed in reply show that they had fully applied their minds to the .confticting versions on questions of fact. As regards the second ground, it is enough to point out that the Govt. of Assam could not be presumed to be in possession of all the facts taken into account by the detaining officer. The detaining officer had not con-sulted the Govt. of Assam before ordering detention. Therefore, the reasonable time taken by the Govt. of Assam in making enquiries only shows that it took care to verify the correctness of allegations made by the petitioners, or, in other words, that it really applied its mind to the facts of their cases.

As the petitioners' cases are still pending before the Advisory Board, I think we ought to observe that any opinion which we may have ex-pressed, in the course of discussion of matters argued before us, on questions pending before the Advisory Board, would not preclude the Board from gQing into either questions of fact or of law raised by the petitioners before the Advisory Board. All that we could and should hold here is that the petitioners have not established an infringement of their constitutional right under Article 22(5) to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making effective representations against their detention orders on the facts of the cases before us. They have, -in fact, made representations, including those against alleged vagueness of some grounds, to the Advisory Board. Power has been expressly ,given to the ~oard by Section 11 (1) of the Act, to call for further information, even suo mota,. from the appropriate Government, if it deems it necessary to do so. The whole opinion of the Board is not confidential under Section 11 ( 4) of the Act. The effectiveness of the representations made by the detenues could only be guaged after the Advisory Board has given its opinion.

The question whether the grounds of detention show that the deten-tion is ab initio illegal must, it seems to me, be kept distinct from the question whether they are so vague and devoid of particulars ·as to amount to denial of the right to make an effective representation at · the earliest opportunity. The totality of relevant fac.ts and circum-stances of each case must be taken into account to determine whether the opportunity of effective· representat~n has been denied. The alleged vagueness or want of particulars, must be viewed in the con-text of the nature of activities alleged, the substance of the allegations made, the contents of actual representations made, and, last but not the least, the effect they have actually produced. And, in considering the last mentioned question, the fact that the case is still under con-sideration, within the legally fixed period of ten weeks from the deten-tion, before an Advisory Board, which has full power and jurisdiction to eliminate some grounds as vague or wanting in particulars and to determine the sufficiency or otherwise of the rest of the grounds and particulars supplied, cannot be ignored.

If matters in dispute, including disputed questions of fact, relating to the validity of detention had necessarily to be determined in this

Court whenever Habeas Corpus petition is filed, it is defficult to &ee· · why the principle could not be extended so that an under trial prisoner, charged with the commission of an offence, could insist that the ques-tion of his innocence or guilt be tried and determined by this Court directly pending his trial by court of competent jurisdiction. In case of ~eventive detention where fairly triable questions of fact or law, which can be more appropriately gone into and decided· by an Advisory Board, are pending before the Board, the petition should be dismissed as premature barring very exceptional circumstances as already indicated above. ·

In Halsbury's "Law of England QIII Edn. (Vol. 11) p. 46), we find:

"Although the Habeas Corpus Act, 1816, enables the return to be controverted, and total absence of jurisdiction, or matters in excess of jurisdiction, may be alleged and prov-ed by aflidavit, facts alleged on the return which were within the jurisdiction of court cannot be controverted".

I find that the petitioners before us have neither proved an excess of power to detain on grounds alleged against them nor that their ed by affidavit, facts alleged on the return which were within the jurisdiction of court cannot be controverted'•.

No doubt this Court must zealously protect the personal freedom of citizens against arbitrary or unconstitutional invasions of it by ex-ecutive authorities. But, 1t does not appear to me to be necessary, in order to do that, to stultify what is, in some respects, the more effective method of .consideration of the whole case by an Advisory Board which could considet: sufficiency of grounds of detention. In this respect the Board could do more than we could ordinarily do in exercise of our writ issuing jurisdiction. To allow the legally pres-cribed procedure for protection of personal J~berty to operate freely and consistently with the social interests preventive detention is meaht to safeguard appears to be the path of judicial wisdom.

Habeas Corpus proceeding should test the legality of detention and not the draftsmanship of the officer who passes detention order or sends the grounds of his satisfaction. Even if some of the grounds of detention . are vague but others could reasonably satisfy the detain· ing authority that, to prevent much greater apprehended harm to social good from the anti-social activities of an individual, his preventive de-G tention is imperative, the sufficiency of the remaining~ grounds of deten-tion should be allowed to be determined by those charged with the duty to consider this quespon. We cannot indirectly do what we have repeatedly held to be not possible for this Court to do directly, or, in other words, we should not und~rtake to determine what is really and substantially only question of sufficiency of grounds of detention.

Some vagueness seems often unavoidable and can almost invari~ ably be discovered if we search assiduously for it among grounds of satisfaction -relating to future course of conduct. of an individual ab~ut which the detainin~ authority has to attempt re~onable and honest

forecast. It is only where vagueness or indefiniteness is disclosed which either makes the satisfaction quite illusory and unreasonable or which really disables detenu from making an effective representation that detention is vitiated on such ground. I am not at all satisfied that this is the position in the case 'before us.

The consequence of the views held and expressed by me above is that I would dismiss these writ petitions. R

ORDER

In view of the majority judgment, the rule nisi is made absolute. We direct the immediate release of the petitioners from custody.