SATYA DEO PRASAD GUPTA v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 854; 1974 INSC 253
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI , N.L. UNTWALIA
Judgment date:
Case summary
1974 INSC 253. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1974-11-27. SATYA DEO PRASAD GUPTA v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
8 56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1975] 2 S. C. R. "854 A SATYA DEO PRASAD GUPTA v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS, November 27, 1974 [P. N. BHAGWATI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ. ] Pa1ventive detention-Duty of Officers of Government 1101 to mi;/ead Court . -Unexplained ·delay in considering detenu's representation-Efjec1 of Consfitution of India 1950, Art. 22(4)-Confirmation of detention wit/i a •view to co11t! 11ue beyo'! d 3 months-When should be made. The District Magistrate issued an ordc:r of detention on June 11, 1974, under s. 3(2)(iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 directing the de! ention of the petitioner and reported the fact to the State Governme:nt. The petitioner Was arrested on July 11. 1974. The State Government approved the order of the detention and referred the case to the Advisory Board on August 9, 1974, On August 16, the representation of the petitioner was received by the State Government and the State Government sent it immediately to the Advisory Board.
The Advisory Board reported on August 20 to the State preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenanr,e of supplies and services essc:n-tial to the community. This order of detention had, however, to be cancelled sinc:e the real na. me of the petitioner was Satya Deo Pras. oad Gupta and not Sailendra Kumar Gupta as mentioned in the order of detention. The District Magistrate then issued another order dated 11th June, 1974 of detention under section 3(2) (iii) of the Act on the ground that it was neces,ary to detain the petitioner with a vfow to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the mainWn· ance of supplies and services essential to the community. Pursuant to the order of detention the petitioner was arrestal on 11th July, 1974 and at the time of his arrest, grounds of detention were served on him.
Thc:se grounds related to the incident of 22nd April, 1974 when the petitioner had sold two ampoules of pathedine and one bottfo of ether at pric:es exceeding those shown in the current list of prices in contravention of paragraph ( 15) 2 of the Drug (Price Con-ttpl) Ort:ler, 1970 and refused to issue cash memo in respect of these sales though required to do so under paragraph 22 of that order and it was 011 the basis. of these grounds of detention that the Diis-trict Magistrate· had arrived at the requisite subiective satisfacticm leading to the making of the order of detention. The District Magi S-trate, immediately after making the order of detention, reportetl the fact to the State Government and the order of detention was an-proved by the State Government within the period prescribed lbv section 3, sub-section (3). The State Government thereafter plae art of the State Governmea. t in considerin2 the representation of the petitioner..
There is no explanation fr\r this inordinate delay offered by the State Government. We asked Mr U. P. Sineh whether he was in a position on behalf of the Stat1! Government to offer an explanation for thiS apparc:ntly. unreasonable delav. but he confessed his inability to do so. We fail to see wlw the State Government should not have been able to con· sider the representation of the petitioner for ab()ut three months. This onlv shows callous disre2atd of the constitutional provision which reauires that the reoresentation of a detenu must be considered with- . out avoidable delay. The constitutional requirement of affording G an opoortunity to a detenu to make a representation against the order of detention is intended to provide a safeguard against im-prot>er or 11niustified exercise of the power of detention and it i:i for this reason that the decisions of this Court have alwavs insisted that the representation of t1ie detenu should be considered promptly and without undue delay.
so that if it is found by the detaining authc>rity, . on consideri112 the reoresentation. that the grounds on which the H order of detention has ·been maXle are incorrect or non-existent or irrelevaftt. the detainin2 authority itaelf may cancel the order o. f detention ancl the · detenu mav be freed from unjustified detention at . ' ! SATYA DEO v. B~R (Bhagwati, I. ) the earliest opportunity. Here, there was a~olutely no justification- ·at least none could be pointed out-why the State Government could not . consider. the representation of the petitioner for about three months. , It . is now well settled by the ~ecision of a Bench of five Judges of this Court in Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal(! ) that where th. ere is inordinate delay on the part of the State Government in c.
onsideri~ the representation of a detemi and no satisfac- 8 torv exolanation is offered by the State Government for such delay, the constitutional oblhtation is violated and the 'detention is rendered invalid. Ray, J. , as he then was, speaking on behalf of the. Court, oointeli o. ut in . that case : · · . · · "In the oresent case, the State of West Ben_gal is guilty of infraction of the constitutional provision n9t only by in· ordinate delav of the consideration of the representation but also bv puttin11 oft the consideration till after the receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board. As we have already observed there is no explanation for this inordinate delay. The Suoerintendent who made the enquiry did not ·affirm ·an affidavit,. The State has given no information . as to whv this lon11 delav occurred. The inescapable c0nclusion in the oresent case is that the appropriate authority: failed to discharl? e its constitutional oblil!
;ation by inactivity and Jack of independent judgment. " Therefore. on this 1? round alone. the detention of the peittioner . must . be held to be invalid. · There is also another !? round which must result· in invalidation of . the detention of the petitioner. The l~w is now well settled as a result of a decision of this Court in D. S. Rov v. The Staie of West 2 Bengal ( ) that on a proper interpretation of Art. 22, clause ( 4) of the Constituticrt. the confirmation of the detention with a view to continue it bevond a l>Criod of three months, on receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board, must be within three months from the date of ·detention. The confirmation. of the detention must, therefore. ·follow withfo three months from the date of detention. Here. in the oresent case; the oetitioner . was detained pursuant to ·the prder of detention on 11th Julv, 1974 and the order confiriuing the detention should, therefore. have been passed at the latest on llth October. 1974.
But the State Government, though it received the opinion of the Advisorv Board as far back as 20th August, 1974, die! not bestir itself for well nil! ;h three months and it was onlv on 15th November, 1974 that it suddenlv woke up to make t. he otder of confirmation. The order of confirmation was i;learly macje. beyond three months from the date of detention and there· is, therefore, no escaoe from the conclusion that the order of detention must be held Ill to he invalid. We mav ooint. out that the deeision of this Court in D. S; Rov v. The State of ·West Bengal( ) was given as . far back as (I) (1970] 3 S. C. R. 225, (2) A. 1. R. 1972 S. C. i924. A 7th December, 1971 and vet the State. Government in the pres1:nt case aeted in contravention of the constitutional man'date enuncialted and explained in that decision. Taking a charitable. view of the matter we mav t>resume that· the State Government was not aw. are of this decision. But that can hardly be an excuse for violation .
of the law. We . think it would be desirable if some machinery is set· up bv the Government of India or the State Government. by which B. the decisions of this Court in cases of preventive detention are brought to the notice, 11f the executive authorities as soon as they are handed down so that the executive authorities know what is the law laid down bv thi:; Court and they can conform to it. · We are thus left with no choice but to hold the detention of the petitioner invalid. We, accordingly, allow the petition and make the rule absolute and direct that the petitioner should be set at lib<:rty c forthwith. V. P. S. Petition allollred.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.