SK. IBRAHIM v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 803; 1973 INSC 247
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA , M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG
Judgment date:
Case summary
1973 INSC 247. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1973-12-19. SK. IBRAHIM v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
\ . • A B c D E F G H 803 SK. IBRAHIM v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. December 19, 1973 [H. R. KHANNA AND M .. H. BEG, JJ. ] Maintenance of Jnternal Security Act, 1911 (Act 26 of 1911)-D•tentlon under sec. 3(1) and (2)-Activities prejudicial to the niaintenance of supplies and services essential to ·the co1nmunily-:Held, on facts that the grou,uls were not vague and there was no delay in considering the representation. The detention order served on the petitioner stated that. on three different dates be along with his associates was found to have smuggled rice to the rationing areas of Hoogly and Howrah and violently atlacked the anti-smuggling party and disrupted the smooth running of the train service. The representation of the deteau was received by the State Government on June 2. 1973. The State Government rejected the representation on Jllne 4, 1973 and forwarded the samQ to the Advi~ •ory Board.
The Advisory Board by their report dated July 11, 1973, held that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. On July 30, 1973, the State Government confirmed the order of detention. The detention was inter alia challenged on the ground of delay and vagueness of grounds. Dismissing the writ petition,· HELD: (1) The State Government received the representation on June 2, 1973 and rejected the same on June 4, 1973. There was no delay in tho dispasal of the representation by the State Government. There was also no inordinate delay although a period of more than ten days had elapsed from the date of aubmissioa of the representation and its actual disposal. [804 H] (2) The mere fact that the detention order is on a cyclostyled sheet wherein ncce. uary particulars were filled in ink would not go to show that the particulars in ink were filled subsequent to the signing of the detention order. There · was no evidence to prove the allegation.
[805 C] (3) The date, time and place of each of the incidents were specified in the· grounds. Particulars were also given regarding the nature of the activities of the petitioner. The facts stated in the grounds of detention were sufficient to apprise the petitioner of the precise activities on account of which the detention orderbad been made. Th. e fact that the. names of the associates of the petitionea were not mentioned in the &rounds of detention would not ao to show that they suffered from the infirmity of vagueness. The Coqrts look with disfavour upon vague grounds of detention, because such grounds fail to convey to the detenu the pre f the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Boa. II by the State Gov- ernment on June 5, 1973. ! he petitioner sent a representation a~ainst his detention and the same was received by the State Govern- ment on June 2. 1973. The State Government rejeCted the repre- sentation on June 4, 1973 and forwarded the same to the Advisory Board.
The Advisory Board after considering the representation and hearing the petitioner in person made report to the State Gov- ernment on. July 11, 1973. Opinion was expressed by the Board that there was suffiCient cause for the detention of the petitioner. On Julv 30. 1973 the State Government confirmed the order for the de\cntion of the petitioner. The petitioner in the meantime filed petition under section 491 of the Code ·of Criminal Procedure before the Calcutta High Court. The said petition was hearll by a Division Bench of the High Court and was dismissed as per judgment dated July 4, 1973. The pre- sent petition under article 32 of the Constituton was thereafter sent bv the petitioner from jail on July 23, 1973 for the issue of a writ Qf hdbeas corpus. · The petition has been resisted by the State of West Bengal and the affidavit of Shri Sukumar S! on, Deputy Secretary, Home (Sp,cial) Department has been filed in opposition to the petition.
Arguments have been addressed before us by Mr. S. C. Majumdar amicus curiae and Mr. Sukumar Ghosh for the State of West Bengal. Mr. Majum- dar has assailel:I the detention of the potitioner on three grounds. It has been argued in the first instance by Mr. Majumdar that there was delay on the part of the State· Government in considering th~ representation of the petitioiner and such delay vitiates the de- tention. This contention. in our opinion, is without any force. It would appear from the affidavit filed by Shri Sukumar Sen that the representation sent by the petitioner was received by the Stato Gov- ernment in its Home Department on June 2. 1973 after it had been forwarded by the Superintendent, Hooghly Jail. The said represen- tation was then considered anl! was rejected by the State Government on June 4. 1973. It cannot, in our ooim\m, be said that there was any delav in the disposal of the representation of the petitioner by the State Government.
It has been ureed that the representatiOn was sent by him from jail on Mav 25, 1973 and that a period of 10 davs elaosed froni the date oi the submission of the representation and its actual disposal. ·The above period cannot also be ·said to be so inord;natelv long as might affect the validity of . the detention. A B D E F G H . B c D F G H IBRAHIM v. WEST BENGAL (Khanna, !. ) 805 It has next been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the . de- tention order ccpltain arrived at Kamarkundu Railway Station, the anti-smuggling party of Howrah G. R. P. Cordonin,ll saw vou in a 3rd class com- partment of the said train with the bags of smuggled rice in contravention of the provisions of. the West Bengal Rice and Pakidy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 196~. The anti-smuggling staff under the command of S. I. , J. C. Das arrested vou from the 3rd class compartment of the said train with two ~y ·bags containing 169 kgs.
of rice which vou were carrving without any permit or authority, By vour such act vou tried to frustrate the food policy of the Government in respect of supplv and distribution of essential commollities to the community. The said acti- vity of yours thus attract section 3(1)(a){iii) of the Main- tenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 O[ 1971). " It wo~d appear from the above that the date, time and place of each of the incidents were sPCCified in the l! l'OUDds. Particulars were also liven rCl! ardin2 the nature of the activities of the petitioner. The facts stated in the grounds of detention were sufficient to apprise lhe petitioner of the orecise activities on account of which the de- tention order had been made. It cannot in the circumstances be said that the petitioner was in anv way handicapped in makillll an effective rel)fCSentation.
The fact that the names of the associates of the petitioner were not mentioned in the grounds of detention woultl not e:o to show that they suffered from the infirmitv of vagueness. The courts look with disfavour upon vague grounds of A B c D E F G H A B c IBRAHIM v. WEST BENGAL (Kha1111a, J. ) 807 ' detention, bec~use such grounds fail , to convey to the detenu the precise activitv on account of which he is being detained. The detenu is thus prevented from making an effective representation which he might possible have made, if he had been apprised of the objection- able activity which led to his detention. Where, however, as in the present case the requisite details of the activity for which the order for detention was made.. have been conveyed to the detenu at1d he is not shown to have been prejudiced or handicapped in making an effective representation, the argument about the vague,. ness of grounds of detention must plainly be held to be not tenable.
The petition consequently fails and is dismissed. S. B. W. Petition dismisJed.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.