Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an advocate practising in Dhanbad, Bihar, was detained under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 by order dated 18th March, 1974 passed by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad, on the ground that his detention was necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The petitioner was arrested on 6th March, 1974 in connection with a false case allegedly instituted by the ruling party to undermine his growing popularity. He was released on bail on 18th March, 1974, but on the same day the District Magistrate passed the detention order, and he was arrested again on 21st March, 1974 as soon as he was released. At the time of his arrest, he was served with Hindi and English versions of the detention order and grounds of detention. The Hindi version recited satisfaction that the petitioner would indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, while the English version added the words "or security of the State". The petitioner's representation to the State Government was rejected on 24th April, 1974, and the Advisory Board, after hearing him personally, opined on 2nd May, 1974 that there was sufficient cause for detention. The High Court rejected his petition under Article 226, and he filed the present petition under Article 32 challenging the validity of detention. The petitioner contended that the discrepancy in the English version showed non-application of mind, that the first ground alleging propagation of communal hatred was vague, and that the District Magistrate considered many more instances than those set out in grounds (2) and (6). The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Hindi version, being the official language of the State, was authentic and clearly indicated satisfaction only regarding maintenance of public order. The addition in the English version was an obvious inadvertent error, not affecting the validity of the order. The first ground was not vague because it contained five detailed instances, providing adequate opportunity for representation. The expression "It would not be possible to give details of such instances" meant that the instances were numerous, but only illustrative ones were reproduced and relied upon, not extraneous matters. The instance of removal of paddy crops in ground (4) was part of a series of acts affecting public order, not merely law and order. The Court also found that statements in the counter-affidavit about the petitioner's alleged activities were intended to rebut his claim of being a social worker and were not taken into account by the detaining authority. Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the detention order as valid.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Grounds of Detention - Discrepancy between Hindi and English versions - Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, Section 3(1)(a)(ii) - The English version of grounds of detention contained additional words "or security of the State" in the recital of satisfaction, while Hindi version only referred to "maintenance of public order". The Court held that Hindi being official language, the Hindi version is authentic; and even in English version, the phrase appeared only in conclusion and was incongruous; it was an obvious inadvertent error and did not vitiate detention. Held that the order of detention is valid. (Paras 220 E-F, 221 E-H) B) Preventive Detention - Grounds of Detention - Vagueness of grounds - Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, Section 3(1)(a)(ii) - First ground alleged propagation of communal hatred between Adivasis and outsiders and Adivasis and non-Adivasis. Court held that allegation with five instances providing detailed particulars was not vague and gave adequate opportunity for representation. Held that ground 1 is not vague. (Para 222 B-C) C) Preventive Detention - Subjective Satisfaction - Consideration of extraneous instances - Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, Section 3(1)(a)(ii) - Petitioner contended that District Magistrate took into account many more instances than set out in grounds (2) and (6). Court held that expression "It would not be possible to give details of such instances" meant instances were numerous, but only illustrative ones were reproduced; no extraneous matters were relied upon. Held that detention not vitiated. (Paras 222 E-F) D) Preventive Detention - Distinction between public order and law and order - Acts affecting public order - Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, Section 3(1)(a)(ii) - Instance of removal of paddy crops in ground (4) viewed in context of series of instances in grounds (2), (3), (5) and (6) was part of public order, not merely law and order. Held that grounds are relevant to public order. (Para 223 B) E) Preventive Detention - Subjective Satisfaction - Consideration of extraneous materials from counter-affidavit - Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, Section 3(1)(a)(ii) - Statements in paragraphs 5 and 7 of counter-affidavit about petitioner's activities were to rebut his claim as social worker, not taken into account by detaining authority. Held that no extraneous consideration. (Para 223 D)
Issue of Consideration
Whether inclusion of 'or security of the State' in English version of grounds of detention vitiated the order of detention; whether first ground of detention alleging propagation of communal hatred was vague and unintelligible; whether District Magistrate took into account many more instances than those set out in grounds (2) and (6), thereby vitiating subjective satisfaction; whether instance of removal of paddy crops in ground (4) related to public order or merely law and order
Final Decision
Petition under Article 32 dismissed; detention order upheld as valid.
Law Points
- If the order of detention purports to be based on satisfaction that it is necessary to detain with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order or security of the State
- it would clearly be an invalid order
- Hindi being the official language of the State
- the Hindi version of grounds of detention is authentic and validity judged with reference to Hindi version
- A discrepancy in English version due to inadvertence does not vitiate detention if order and grounds clearly indicate satisfaction about public order only
- Grounds are not vague if they contain sufficient particulars to enable effective representation
- Expression 'It would not be possible to give details of such instances' means instances were numerous but only illustrative ones relied upon
- Instances of violence in series affecting community at large relate to public order
- not merely law and order
- Statements in counter-affidavit to rebut social worker claim not taken into account by detaining authority
