Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgement: 20th January, 2003
Bench: Justice S. Rajendra Babu & P. Venkatarama Reddi
Facts of the Case: In this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking for quashing of an order made under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest offenders, Gonndas, Immoral traffic offenders and Slum grabbers Act, 1982. The petitioner claims to be a resident of Delhi. He does not know Tamil language nor any member of his family is conversant with the said language. The detention of the petitioner is attacked on the ground that a solitary instance mentioned in the grounds of detention is not of such magnitude and intensity as to have the effect of disturbing the public order so as to pass an order under Section 3(1) of the Act; that the petitioner is already in judicial custody and is in jail as an under-trial prisoner and a mere possibility of his release on bail is not enough for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order; that the detention of the petitioner affects his right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and is also violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. In the return filed on behalf of the state the Commissioner of the Police submits that he petitioner came for adverse notice in three cases registered at various police stations, that is, in crime under Section 379 IPC.
Judgement of the Case: The Supreme Court held that in the present case, the three alleged incidents to which the Commissioner of Police has referred to are thefts arising under Section 379 1PC and, therefore, there is only a solitary instance wherein the detenu is alleged to have robbed in a public place. Therefore, there is no material on record to show that the reach and potentiality of the single incident of robbery was so great as to disturb the even tempo or normal life of the community in the locality or disturb general peace and tranquillity or create a sense of alarm and insecurity in the locality. Though in the grounds of detention the detaining authority had stated that by committing this offence in public the detenu created a sense of alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of the area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which affected even tempo of life of the community, but citation of these words in the order of detention is more in the nature of a ritual rather than with any significance to the content of the matter. Thus, a solitary instance of robbery as mentioned in the grounds of detention is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for the purpose of preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This ground is enough to quash the order of detention made by the respondents.
Hence it directed the release of the detenu forthwith, if he is to required to be detained with respect to any other matter arising under law. The petition is allowed accordingly.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS