Supreme Court Dismisses Detenu's Habeas Corpus Petition Challenging Preventive Detention Under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. Bomb Attack Grounds Established Disturbance of Public Order, and Detention Upheld as Subjective Satisfaction Was Reasonable; State Directed to Consider Second Representation Under Section 14 of the Act.

Habeas corpus petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging preventive detention order passed under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.

Petitioner sought release from detention and quashing of detention order dated 01-10-1973 passed by Commissioner of Police, Calcutta.

Detention order based on two incidents of hurling bombs causing disturbance of public order; petitioner alleged grounds vague, false, mala fide, fanciful, non-existent and no rational nexus to permissible objects of preventive detention.

Calcutta High Court dismissed earlier writ petition under Article 226; Advisory Board opined sufficient cause for detention; State Government confirmed detention order on 08-11-1973; second representation was pending consideration.

Whether the grounds of detention were vague, false, mala fide, fanciful, or non-existent. Whether the offences mentioned in the grounds could be the subject-matter of ordinary criminal prosecutions and not amount to breach of public order. Whether there was non-application of mind by the detaining authorities and the Advisory Board. Whether Section 14 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 required a particular procedure for considering the second representation. Whether the detention violated Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

Petitioner argued that grounds were vague, false, mala fide, fanciful, non-existent; no rational nexus with permissible objects of preventive detention; offences were ordinary criminal matters not public order; affidavit of tea shop owner showed non-participation. State argued that detention was valid; criminal prosecution not a bar to preventive detention; subjective satisfaction of detaining authority was reasonable; Advisory Board applied its mind; second representation was being considered.

Public order is an elastic concept wider than security of State; preventive detention is precautionary and can be based on criminal activities without being a parallel proceeding; subjective satisfaction of detaining authority is not to be interfered with unless no reasonable person could be satisfied; Section 14 of MISA vests power to revoke or modify detention order at any time and is not necessarily subject to Section 21 of General Clauses Act; on habeas corpus, petitioner must show violation of Articles 21 or 22.

"Public Order" is necessarily an elastic concept which is, in any case, wider than the "security of the State" category separated in the Act from it by the disjunctive "or". The power of preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention. The power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. Section 14 of the Act apparently vests a wider power than that which the State Govt. may have possessed under Sec. 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897, which is by having been specifically mentioned in Sec. 14 of the Act, makes it clear the power under Sec. 14 is not necessarily subject to the provision of Sec. 21 of the General Clauses Act. On a habeas corpus petition, what has to be considered by the Court is whether the detention is prima facie legal or not, and not whether the detaining authorities have wrongly or rightly reached a satisfaction on every question of fact.

Detention order passed by Commissioner of Police, Calcutta on 01-10-1973 and grounds served same day. Petitioner's first representation received by State Government on 18-10-1973. Detention order approved by State Government on 22-10-1973. Case sent to Advisory Board on 23-10-1973 along with grounds, representation, and report under Section 3(3) of MISA. Advisory Board gave opinion on 05-11-1973 that there was sufficient cause for detention. State Government confirmed detention order on 08-11-1973, served on petitioner in jail on 14-11-1973. On 20-11-1973, Lal Mohan Jadav swore an affidavit stating petitioner did not participate in attack. Petitioner made second representation on 27-11-1973, received by State Government on 28-11-1973, still under consideration. Petitioner filed writ petition under Article 226 in Calcutta High Court; High Court rejected the challenge (date noted in judgment as 21-3-1973, likely typo for 21-3-1974). Present petition under Article 32 filed in Supreme Court.

• Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971: Section 3(a)(ii), Section 3(3), Section 11, Section 14
• General Clauses Act, 1897: Section 21
• Constitution of India: Article 21, Article 22, Article 32, Article 226