Case Note & Summary
The petitioner was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, on allegations of black-marketing essential commodities. He challenged the detention order on the ground that some of the grounds supplied were vague and one was non-existent. The detention order contained several grounds, including ground (a) which alleged sale of matchboxes and soap at a higher price without naming the shopkeeper or specifying prices, and ground (d) which alleged sale to a person who did not exist in the described locality. The petitioner contended that these defects violated his right to make an effective representation against the detention. The State argued that even if these grounds were ignored, the remaining grounds were sufficient to sustain the detention. The Supreme Court held that ground (a) was vague because the futility of making a representation regarding an unnamed person and unspecified price was evident, and it was also irrelevant as there was no information on fixation of prices. Ground (d) was held to be non-existent, and the State's explanation of a typographical error was deemed a new allegation. The Court further held that the defects in these two grounds were sufficient to vitiate the entire order, and it could not be sustained on the remaining grounds. Consequently, the detention order was quashed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention - Vague Grounds - Preventive Detention Act, 1950, Sections 3(1)(a)(iii), 4 - The detention order included ground (a) which vaguely alleged sale of matchboxes and soap at a higher price without naming the shopkeeper or specifying the fixed or actual price. This vagueness made it impossible for the detenu to make an effective representation or satisfy the Advisory Board. Held that such a vague ground vitiates the detention order. (Paras 590 C-E) B) Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention - Non-Existent Grounds - Preventive Detention Act, 1950, Sections 3(1)(a)(iii), 4 - Ground (d) of the detention order alleged sale to a person 'K' who did not exist in the described locality, rendering the ground non-existent. The State's explanation of a typographical error introduced a new allegation not contained in the grounds, denying the detenu an opportunity of representation. Held that a non-existent ground vitiates the detention order. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention - Severability of Grounds - Preventive Detention Act, 1950, Sections 3(1)(a)(iii), 4 - The State contended that the detention could be sustained on the remaining grounds, but the Court held that the defects in grounds (a) and (d) were sufficient to vitiate the entire order, as it was not possible to uphold the detention on the remaining grounds alone. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the detention order can be sustained when some grounds are vague and some non-existent.
Final Decision
The order of detention must be set aside.
Law Points
- Vague grounds of detention invalidate the order as they deny effective representation
- non-existent grounds also vitiate the order
- if some grounds are defective
- the order cannot be sustained on remaining grounds.
