Holding

The detention orders under the National Security Act, 1980 were valid and the petitioners' challenges were rejected.

Summary

The Supreme Court dismissed a joint writ petition filed by two British nationals, David Patrick Ward and Stephen Hillman, who were detained under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 by the Nagaland State Government for alleged involvement with Naga insurgents. The petitioners challenged the detention on six grounds: that a solitary act cannot justify preventive detention, that the grounds of detention were vague, that they were not served with the detention order, that their representation to the State Government was not considered, that they should have been deported, and that they should be transferred to Tihar Jail to facilitate consular access. The Court held that a solitary act may form the basis of detention if the surrounding circumstances justify a reasonable inference of future wrongdoing, that the grounds were specific and not vague, that proper service of the order had been proved, and that the representation issue was moot as the matter was sub‑judice. It further ruled that the court could not substitute detention with deportation and that security considerations justified keeping the petitioners in Naini Jail, rejecting the transfer request. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a solitary act can constitute the basis for preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980.
Whether the grounds of detention were vague or ambiguous, rendering the detention invalid.
Whether the petitioners were properly served with the detention order and grounds of detention.
Whether the representation made to the State Government was considered despite the pending writ petition.
Whether the petitioners should have been deported instead of detained.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to be transferred to Tihar Jail to facilitate consular access under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

Legislation cited

Foreigners (Protected Areas) Order, 1958
National Security Act, 1980s. 10, s. 3(1), s. 3(2), s. 5
Vienna Convention on Consular Relationss. Article 36

Subjects

Preventive detentionNational Security ActSolitary actVagueness of groundsService of detention orderRepresentation under preventive detentionDeportation vs detentionConsular accessVienna ConventionSecurity considerationsForeign nationals

Judgment

A DAVID PATRICK WARD AND ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

AUGUST 26, 1992

B [L.M. SHARMA, S. MOHAN AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

National Security Act, 1980: Sections 3( I), 3(2): British nation-
als-Detention orde1'-l'etition challenging detention on the plea of" vagueness
and non-service of grounds, detention based on solitary Act, non-considera-
C lion of representalion, refusal to deport-Held grounds served were neither
vague nor ambiguous-Solitary Act can form the basis of detention order-
When writ challenging deteniion is filed immediately after making repre-
sentation matter becomes sub-judice and the question of considering repre-
sentatio11 does not arise-:-Detenlion order held valid.

D SectiOll 5-cf'ower of clJult to regulate place and wnditions of detention:
Foreign nationaf--Detentzon. order-Criteria for fixing place of deten-
tion-Factors to be taken inro account-Convenience of Consular officers is
not the lone criteria-Consideralion of security is impoltant-Vienna Conven-
tion on Consular Relations-Alticle 36( 1).
E The Nagaland State Government passed Detention Orders dated
31.1.1992 against the petitioners, both British Nationals, under sub-section
(1) and (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The grounds of
detention comprised of that (I) a convoy of four fast moving motor vehicles
under the complete control of Naga Insurgents and their associates was
F moving during night in the disturbed area where Naga Insurgency was on
the rise; (II) the Insurgents and their associates were carrying modern and
sophisticated weapons, necessary equipments for preparing documentary
of the struggle of Insurgents and their associates for establishment of
Independent Nagaland State and large amount of Indian and foreign
G currency to fund insurgent activity; (Iii) while bait signal was given to the
convoy, the occupants opened fire and caused injury to one of the members
of the patrol party; (Iv) while one of the petitioners surrendered, the other
was arrested only after a chase.

Each petitioner being served with the detention order made against
H him along with the ground of detention on 4.2.1992, is detained in pur-
26
DAVIDPATRICKv. U.0.1. 27

suance thereof. Both the petitioners being lodged at Jessami Jail, to begin A
with, are shirted to Imphal Central Jail and thereafter to Naini Jail,
Allahabad where they are said to have been lodged finally for security
reasons. A report on the said detentions is said to have been made on
18.2.1992, by the Nagaland State Government to the Central Government
as required by sub-section (5) or section 3 or the Act. Nagaland State B
Government is said to have also made reference to.Advisory Board respect-
ing the detentions or the petitioners as required by section 10 or the Act.
Pursuant thereto; the Advisory Board heard the petitioners in person on
their detentions. After such hearing, the Advisory Board being of the
opinion that there was sufficient cause for detention or the petitioners, a
report was sent to Nagaland State Government which on consideration of C
that report has confirmed the detention orders on 2.4.1992.

Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition challenging the
legality of the detention orders made against them and their continued
detention on the grounds that; (1) a solitary Act cannot form the basis of D
a detention order; (2) the grounds or detention are vague; (3) neither of
the petitioners was served with the detention order and grounds of deten-
tion made against him. Therefore, no effective representation could be
made; (4) the representation made to the State Government bas not been
considered; (5) one of the petitioners bad expressed the desire to return
to bis country, he must have been deported; and (6) the prayer of the E
petitioner for transfer to Central Jail, Tibar, Delhi could be ordered to
enable the petitioners to contact the British High Commission and get
their grievances redressed effectively.

Dismissing the petitions, this Court, F
HELD: 1. _The detaining authority can base Its order or detention
even on a solitary act provided that the conduct or the person concerned
with the act In the circumstances In which It was committed, is or such a
nature as would enable the formation of requisite satisfaction that the G
person, Ir not prevented by an order or detention, is likely to Indulge in
repetition of similar acts in future. That Is certainly so In the present case,
having regard to the various circumstances from the beginning, viz. the
concealment of the purpose or visit, the entry without permit in the
prohibited area upto the time of arrest or the petitioners. Therefore, the
grounds of detention relating to what occurred on the night in question H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A sufficed for making the detention orders under challenge. [39 B-D]

Mrs. Saraswathi Seshagiri v. State of Kera/a and Anr., (1982] 2 S.C.C.
310; Debu Mahato v. The State of West Bengal, (1974] 4 S.C.C. 135;
Haradhan Saha v. The State of West Bengal and Ors., [1975] 3 S.C.C. 198
and M. Mohammed Sultan v.Joint Secretary to Government of India, Finance
B Departmelll and Ors., [1991] 1 S.C.C. 144, relied on.

2. It is true that If the grounds are vague, no effective representation
could be made. Such vagueness would vitiate the order of detention. In this
case, the material facts and circumstances on which orders of detention
C are based, are stated in the grounds of detention very clearly. Thus, the
grounds on which the satisfaction under Section 3 of the Act came to be
arrived at cannot be held to be either vague or ambiguous.
[36 G-H, 35 HJ
Khudiram Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., [1975] 2 S.C.C. 81
D and State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, (1984] 1 S.C.C. 596
held inapplicable.

3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the state of Nagaland, it
is categorically averred that the petitioners were actually served with the
detention orders and the grounds of detention. The necessary records
E produced before the Court shows that the detention orders and the
grounds bad been served. The signatures which are not disputed by the
petitioners bad also been obtained acknowledging the receipt of the
original documents. Besides, the ground of non-service was not even pnt
forth before the Advisory Board. Under these circumstances, the argument
that these documents had been brought about for purposes of the case is
F not tenable. [35 D-F]

4. The representation stated to have been sent to the State Govern-
ment, it is fairly conceded is nothing more than a copy or the writ petitions
filed before this Court. That was receiv"d by the State Government through
G Nalnl Jail authorities. While steps were taken by the State Government for
processing the same for consideration, the writ petitions have come to be
filed. Therefore, the question of consideration of the representation on a
matter, which is subjudlce did not arise. [39 F-G]

Narendra Purshotam Umrao v. B.B. Gujral and Ors., [1979] 2 S.C.C.
H 637 and Syed Farooq Muhammad v. Union of India and Anr., (1990] 3
DAVID PATRICK v. U.0.1. 29

S.C.C. 537 distinguished. A
5. If there are good grounds to form the subjective satisfaction under
Section 3 of the Act, it is not for the Court to say which is a better course;
either to detain the petitioners by an order of preventive detention or to
deport them. Petitioners are known to belong to a U.K. based organisation
called "Naga Vigil". They had entered Nagaland without obtaining B
"Restricteu Area Permit" as required under the Foreigners (Protected
Areas) Order, 1958. They lived with Naga Insurgents in their gang and
participated in their activities, for almost three months. If regard Is had
to the pretext on which the petitioners bad entered India, the non-dis·
closure by them of the real purpose for which they were visiting India, and C
attempts .made by them to evade arrest from the Indian security forces by
opening lire against them, it would be difficult to think that their depor·
tation from India will not make them return to India by some means or
the other to carry on the prejudicial activities which were carried on by
tl!em before their detention along with Naga insurgents and secessionists,
against the established State Government and the Central Government. If D
under these circumstances, the authorities are not In favour of deportation
of the petitioners to their country the Court cannot find fault with. thel!l·
[40 B-C, H, 41 A-CJ
6. The Court is not powerless to examine the conditions of preventive
detention under Section 5 where a case warrants such examination. But In E
this case the authorities concerned have taken a conscious decision, that
the need of security requires that·the petitioners should be kept In Nainl
Jail at Allahabad and have come forward to offer all facilities to the
officers of the British High Commission desirous of visiting them at Nalni
Jail, Allahabad to have easy access to the petitioners. Therefore, It Is F
difficult to grant the prayer seeking the shilling of the petitioners from
Naini Jail, Allahabad to Tihar Jail, Delhi. [42 A-El

AX Roy v. Union of India and Ors., [1982] 1 S.C.C. 271 explained.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Cr!.) Nos. 136-37 of G
1992.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

Ms. Indira Jaisingh, H.S. Sindhu and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for the
Petitioners. H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A Altaf Ahmed, Addi. Solicitor General, Ms. A. Subhashini, Ms. Niran-
jana Singh, A.S. Pundir and Ajay K Agrawal tor the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VENKATACHALA, J. This is a joint Writ Petition under Article 32
B of the Constitution filed by Mr. David Patrick Ward as Petitioner-1, Mr.
Steven Hillman as Petitioner-2, both being British Nationals, challenging
the legality of the Detention Orders dated 31st January, 1992 made against
them under sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the National Security
Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and seeking their release
C forthwith by issuance of Writs of Habeas Corpus to Respondents: (1) the
Union of India, (2) the State of Uttar Pradesh, (3) the State of Nagaland.

Detention order made against each petitioner discloses that it had
been made by Nagaland State Govermnent with a view to prevent the
D concerned petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence
of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, the security of India,
the security of the State of Nagaland and maintenance of public order. The
ground of detention pertaining to each detention order being common and
in identical terms, reads:

E "On 30th January, 1992 around 2030 hrs, four vehicles i.e.
A/Car NLK-8701, A/Car NLH-6103, Tata truck NLH-
8093 and Maruti Gypsy NLH-1115 were moving on road
from Meluri to Kiphire. When they were signalled to stop
by a patrol of 14 A.R. near Meluri, instead of stopping,
F fire was opened on the 14 A.R. patrol from M/Gypsy in
which one rifleman of A.R. No. 143685 Shri Praveen Das
was hit on the right shoulder. Assam Rifles returned fire
on the M Gypsy killing Nipielie Chucha on the spot. At
this, the occupants of the front three vehicles raised their
arms and came out and were arrested by Assam Rifles.
G The arrested at this time included British national Shri
Hillman Stephen Neil, nine insurgents and three drivers
of these vehicles. Some documents, one diary and cash
amounting to Rs. 8286 were recovered. One chinese LMG
and three Chinese rifles with 107 rounds of ammunitions,
H two VHF radio sets, one video camera with 30 cassettes,
DAVJDPATRICKv. U.O.l. [VENKATACHALA,J.] 31

one Pentax camera and a video camera charger set were A
also recovered. In the meantime, M/Gypsy being the last
Vehicle quickly turned back and went towards J essami.
This Maruti Gypsy was finally intercepted around 2230
hrs by the 111 BSF jawans near Lanyie Bridge. From the
M/Gypsy British national David Patrick Ward and one
B
insurgent were arrested and the dead body of one insur-
gent was also recovered. Also from this M/Gypsy Rs. 3795
in each 30 US Dollar, three self cheques of 2,000 each
and nine rounds of ammunition were recovered.

The list of the persons arrested from these four vehicles is as follows: C
1. David Patrick Ward
2. Stephen Neil Hillman
3. SS 2/Lt. Vevochu S/o Mr. Vepahi
4. SS Sqt. Major Cupanyi S/o Mr. Thevio
5. SS Sgt. Major Nasu Sia Chasli D
6. SS Sqt. Major Vetsoswu S/o Vekuye
7. SS : Cpl Veshukho S/o Vekhije
8. SS Pvt Sheiveyi S/o Mr. Javesayi
9. SS Pvt Mudokho S/o Mr. Veswoiita
10. Sri Kolezo Chase S/o Mr. Zakievilie Chase E
11. Mr. Kholieveio S/o Mr. Nivepfuo
12. Mr. Zhopra S/o Mr. Sashito
13. Mr. Khriliehu S/o Mr. Mani Angami
14. Mr. Vilapralie S/o Mr. Neisatuo
15. Wakedo S/o Shri Nguchieni
F
It would be seen from the names mentioned above that you were a
part and parcel in carrying out activities which are prejudicial to the
following:-

1. Defence of India
2. Relations of India with foreign powers
G
3. Security of.India
4. Security of State of Nagaland
5. Maintenance of public order."

While the said ground of detention is put under the head "Schedule" H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A in the Annexure to the Grounds of Detention communication, the latter is
addressed to each petitioner by hrnishing the following information for his
guidance:

"You have a right to make a representation to the State
Government against above-said order. You have also a
B right to claim personal hearing before the Advisory
Board."

Each petitioner being served with the detention order made against
him along with the ground of detention on 4.2.1992 is detained in pur-
C suance thereof. Both the petitoners being lodged in 1/5 G.R. at Jessami
Jail, to being with, are shifted on 12.2.1992 to Imphal Central Jail and
thereafter on 15.2.1992 to Naini Jail, Allahabad where they are said to have
been lodged finally for security reasons. A report on the said detentions is
said to have been made on 18.2.1992, by the Nagaland State Government
D to the Central Government as required by sub-section (5) of Section 3 of
the Act. Nagaland State Government is said to have also made reference
to Advisory Board respecting the detentions of the petitioners as required
by Section 10 of the Act. Pursuant thereto, the Advisory Board having fixed
its meeting at Imphal on 15.3.1992 has heard the petitioners in person on
their detentions. After such hearing, the Advisory Board being of the
E opinion that there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioners, a
report is sent to Nagaland State Government which on consideration of
that report has confirmed t~e detention orders on 2.4.1992.

Petitioners have .subsequently on 24.4.1992 filed the present joint
F Writ Petition challenging the legality of the said detention orders made
against them and their continued detention.
ii
Ms. Indira J aising, learned counsel for the petitioners, urges the
following points for our consideration:

G 1. Neither of the petitioners was served With the detention
order and grounds of detention made against him. There-
fore, no effective representation could be made. It is the
duty of the State Government to prove that there has been
a proper service of the detention order and the grouncis
H
DAVIDPATRJCKv. U.0.1.[VENKATACHALA,J.] 33
-~

of detention. That burden of proof has not been dis- A
........ charged .

2. The grounds of detention are vague. They consist of
nothing more than repetition of the Sections of the Na-
tional Security Act; The vagueness of the grounds would
be enought to invalidate the orders of detention as laid B
down by this Court in Khudiram Das v. The State of West
../' Bengal & Ors., [1975] 2 SCC 81, State of Punjab and Ors.
v. Jagdev Singh Ta/wandi, [1984] 1 SCC 596 at page 604.

3. When a representation had been made to the State
Government, it has not been considered on the ground of
c
pendency of writ petition. The procedure adopted is whol-
ly wrong because this court in more than one case had
emphasised the need for expeditious consideration of
representation, as in Narendra Purshotam Umrao v. B.B.
Gujral and Ors., [1979] 2 sec at page 644 (paragraph 24} D
and Syed Farooq Muhammad v. Union of India and Anr.,
[1990] 3 sec 537 at 547 (paragraph 17).

4. If the object of preventive detention is to prevent the
detenue from indulging in subversive activities, one of.the
E
petitioners a~ had expressed the desire tu return to his
country, he must have been deported.

5. The next submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners, is that on the solitary incident which took
place on 30.1.1992 the detention could not have been F
ordered. In support of this submission, reliance is place
on Debu Mehta v. The State of West Bengal, [1974] 4 SCC
135 and M. Mohamed Su/than v. Joint Secretary to Govern-
ment of India, Finance Department and Ors., [1991] 1 sec
144.
G
6. Without prejudice to the said submissions, she urges,
assuming that the order of detention is valid, the condition
of detention can be reviewed by this Court as laid down
in A.K Roy v. Union of India and Ors., (1982] 1 SCC 271
at page 323 (paragraph 73). Therefore, at least, the prayer H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

-
A of the petitioners for transfer to Central Jail, Tihar, Dellli
could be ordered. Then alone, the petitioners will be in a
position to contact the British High Commission and get
their grievances redressed effectively. This is the spirit of
Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Rela-
tions. Under the said Article, the Consular Officers have
B
the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in
prison or under detention and to arrar.ge for his legal
representation. Presently, that valuable right is denied to
the petitioners.

C In opposition to this, learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Altaf
Ahmad, appearing for the Union of India, submits that it is incorrect to
contend that service of detention orders was not made on the petitioners.
He produced documentary proof in support of service of the order of
detention. As a matter of fact, it has been categorically stated so in the
counter affidavit of the third respondent, the State of Nagaland, annexing
D the copies of acknowledgements to it. This will clearly prove service of the
detention order.

Equally, it is incorrect to contend that the grounds of detention are
vague. The incident on 30/31.1.1992 which forms the grounds of .detention
E discloses that the occupants of the motor vehicle in which one of the
petitioners was moving, fired on the patrol party and injured one Assam
Rifles jawan, by name, Praveen Das. Only after a chase, the DIG of Assam
Rifles was able to arrest at 2230 hrs petitioner-1, David Patrick Ward.
Certainly these grounds coupled with recovery of arms and ammunition
would clearly establish that there is no vagueness at all as far as the grounds
F of detention are concerned.

It is true that a representation was forwarded by the Jail Authority
at Naini Jail as per the letter dated 27.4.1992. That was received on 5.5.1992
by the State Government. While the State Government took necessary
G steps to process the same for consideration, the Writ Petitions came to be
filed on 5.5.1992 on which the State Government received notice on
13.5.1992. Therefore, the question of consideration of the representation
did not arise at all since by then the petitioners had questioned the validity
of detention orders.

H It is not for the petitioners to say as to whether they should be
DAVIDPATRICKv. U.O.l.[VENKATACHALA,J.] 35

detained or deported. The only requirement under the law is whether. there A
are good grounds for invoking Section 3 of the Act. Certainly, in this case,'
there are valid grounds for detention .

.There is no such thing as a rule of thumb that a solitary act cannot
form the basis of detention. As a matter of fact, in Haradhan Saha v. The
State of West Bengal and Ors., {1975] 3 SCC- 198 and Mrs. Saraswathi B
Seshagiri v. State of Kera/a and Anr., [1982] 2 SCC 310, this Court had.
upheld the detention orders based on solitary act.

From the point cif view of security, it is not possible to transfer the
petitioners to Delhi Jail.
c
We shall now take up the points for consideration seriatim.

L Whether service of detention order had been effected?

With regard to service of groilnds of detention, the petitioners would
assert non-service both in the Writ Petitions as well as the rejoinders. D
However, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of third respondent, the
. State of Nagaland, it is _categorically averred that the petitioners .were
actually served on 4.2.1992 with the detention orders and the grounds of
detention by the SDO {Civil) Meluri. Necessary acknowledgements also
had been obtained· from them. As a matter .of a fact, learned Additional E
Solicitor General, in support of this .averment produced before us the
necessary records. We have perused them and we are satisfied that the
detention o~ders and: the grounds of detention had been served. The
signatures (which. are not disputed by the petitioners) had also been
obtained acknowledging the receipt of the original documents. Besides, the
F
ground of non-service was not even put forth before the Advisory Board.
Under these circumstances, the argument that these documents had· been
brought about for purposes of the case is not tenable. Therefore, we hold
that there was proper service on 4.2.1992.

2. Grounds of detention whether vague? G
Material facts and circumstances on which orders of detention are
based, are stated in the grounds of detention very clearly. Grounds of
detention are comprised of the following, as becomes apparent from them:

(i) There was a convoy of four fast moving motor vehicles H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A driven by expert drivers.
'

(ii) Those motor vehicles were under the complete control
of 10 Naga insurgents and their associates who were the
occupants of the vehicles.

B (iii) The insurgents and the associates were armed with
modern and sophisticated weapons, such as, Chinese Live
Machine Gun (LMG), three Chinese rifles together with
a large quantity of ammunition as 116 rounds. Not only
that, they had been used to avert their arrest by 14 Assam
Rifles patrol party.
c
(iv) There were necessary equipments for prepari•1g
documentary of the struggle of insurgents and their as-
sociates for establishment of independent Nagaland State,
such as, two VHF radio sets, one video camera charger, etc.
D
(v) The convoy was moving during night in the disturbed
area where Naga insurgency was on the rise and seces-
sionist activities of Naga were on the increase.

(vi) While halt signal was given to the convoy, the oc-
E cupants opened fire and caused injury to Praveen Das,
one of the members of the patrol party.

(vii) While Hillman Stephen Neil, petitioner-2, sur-
rendered, David Patrick Ward, petitioner-1 was arrested
only after a chase.
F
(viii) Seizure of large amount of money consisting of both
Indian and foreign currency to fund in~urgent activity.

These are the grounds on which the satisfaction under Section 3 of
G the Act came to be arrived at. We are unable to persuade ourselves to hold
that they are either vague or ambiguous. On the contrary, they are very
specific and clear. It is true as laid down in Khudiram Das (supra) and
Jagdev Singh Talwandi (supra) that if the grounds are vague, no effective
representation could be made. Such vagueness would vitiate the order of
detention. But, here, as explained, the grounds of detention being specific
H and clear and not vague or ambiguous, the said decisions of this Court
DAVIDPATRICKv. U.0.1.[VENKATACHALA,J.] 37

cannot be availed of for advancing the point under consideration. Hence, A
the point does not merit acceptance.

Before parting with tills point, we may also consider whether a
solitary act would be enough to form the basis of detention.

3. Whether order of detention could be found on a solitary B
act?

Mrs. Saraswathi Seshagiri v. State of Kera/a and Anr., (supra) is a
ruling cited by learned Additional Solicitor General. In that case, the wife
of the detenu in a petition presented by her under Article 32 of the C
Constitution had challenged the validity of the detention order made
against her hnsband. The contention there was that a solitary incident of
an attempt on the part of the detenu to export Indian currency to foreign
countries, would hardly be sufficient to warrant an inference that the
detenu will repeat such activity in furture also and that his detention was
necessary to prevent him from doing so in future. This Court negatived that D
contention relying on an observation in Debu Mahala v. The State of West
Bengal [1974] 4 SCC 135, by stating thus:

"From the aforesaid observation, it is evident that an
inference in each case will depend on the nature of the
E
act and the attendant circumstances. In the present case,
the detenu tried to export Indian currency to the tune of
Rs. 2,88,900 to a foreign. country in a planned and
premeditated manner by clever concealment of it in
several parts of his baggage. This fully justified the detain-
ing authority in coming to the conclusion that he might F
repeat his illegal act in future also 1111d that his detention
was necessary to preventing him from repeating the same
in future. His past act in the circumstances might be in
index of his future conduct."

To similar effect is the ruling in Haradhan Saha v. The State of West
G
Bengal and Ors., [1975] 3 SCC 198 where the order of detention which was
founded on a solitary act was upheld by this Court. In paragraph 37 of the
ruling, it is stated thus:

"37. The ground given in Madan Lal Agarwala's case is H
38 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A that he in collusion with his father had hoarded 8 quintals
84 kg. of rice, 2 quintals 88 kg. of flour and 1 quintal 96
kg. of suji and further that he had no licence as required
by Section 4 of the West Bengal Essential Foodstuffs
Anti-Hoarding Order, 1966. The detaining authority said
in the ground:
B
"It is. apparent in the aforesaid facis that you in col-
lusion with y011r father are likely to withhold or impede
supply of foodstuffs or rationed articles essential to the
community. 11
c The future behaviour· of Madan Lal Agarwala based
on his past conduct in the light of surrounding circumstan-
ces is the real ground of detention. It is needless to stress
the obvious that Madan Lal Agarwala's acts are gravely
prejudicial to the maintenance ofsupplies essential to the
D ~ommunity.".

Therefore, it cannot be contended that as a rule a solitary act can
never form the basis of an order of detention.

Even in the ruling of Mrs. Saraswathi Seshagiri (supra) relied on by
E learned counsel for the petitioners the following observation made by this
Court in Debu Mahato v. The State of West Bengal, [1974] 4 SCC 135, is
excerpted:

· "........ We must, of course, make it clear that it is not our
F view that in no case can a single solitary act attributed to
a person form the basis for reaching a satisfaction that he
might repeat such acts in future and in order to prevent
him from doing so, it is necessary to detain him. The
nature of the act and the attendant circumstances may, in
a given case be such as to reasonably· justify an inference
G that the person concerned, if not detained, would be likely
to indulge in commission of such acts in future. The order
of detention is essentially a precautionary measure and it
is based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour
of a person based on his past conduct judged in .the light
H of the surrounding circumstances. Such past conduct may
DAVIDPATRICKv. U.O.l.(VENKATACHALA,J.] 39

consist of one single act of a series of acts. But whatever A
•. it be, it must be of such a nature that an inference can
reasonably be drawn from it that a person concerned
would be likely to repeat such acts so as to warrant his
detention ..... 11

Tested in the light of the above decisions, certainly, the acts in which B
the petitoners indulged would form the basis of detention. The detaining
authority can base its order of detention even on a solitary act provided
that the conduct of the person concerned with the act in the circumstances
in which it was committed, is of such a nature as would enable the
formation of requisite satisfaction that the person, if not prevented by an C
· order of detention, is likely to indulge in repetition of similar acts in future.
That is certainly so in the present case, having regard to the various
circumstances from the beginning, viz. the concealment of the purpose of
visit, the entry without permit in the prohibited area upto the time of arrest
of the petitioners. Therefore, the grounds of detention relating to what D
occurred on the night between 30th and 31st January, 1992 sufficed for
making the detention orders under challenge. Debu Mahato (supra) and
M. Mohamed Sultan (supra), the decisions of this Court on which reliance
is placed to support the p(>int under examination, indeed go against the
point. Hence, the point cannot succeed.
E
4. Non-consideration of representation

The representation stated to have been sent to the State Government,
it is fairly conceded is nothing more than a copy of the writ petitions filed
before this Court That was received by the State Government through F
Naini Jail authorities on 5.5.1992. As stated in the affidavit of the third
respondent while steps were taken by the State Government for processing
the same for consideration, the writ petitions have come to be filed on
5.5.1992. Notice on the writ petitions was received by the State Government
on 13.5.1992. Therefore, the question of consideration of the representation. G
on a matter, which is sub-judice did not arise. If regard is had to the clear
and firm stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State
Government that the reliefs sought by the petitioners in the writ petitions
cannot be granted, question of the State Government now considering the
representation, which is nothing but the writ petition itself, does not arise.
In this situation, the decision of this Court in Narendra Purshotam Umrao H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A (supra) and Syed Farooq Mohammad (supra), on the basis of which need
for expeditious consideration of representation by the State Government
was emphasised cannot be of any help.

5. Whether petitioners ought to have been depolted?
B
Certainly, if there are good grounds to form the subjective satisfac-
tion under Section 3 of the Act, it is not for the Court to say which is a
better course; either to detain the petitioners by an order of preventive
detention or to deport them. Petitioners are known to belong to a U .K
based organisation called "Naga Vigil" as is disclosed in the counter af-
C fidavit of Home Commissioner of Nagaland State Government. It is said
in that counter affidavit that the petitioners had entered Nagaland without
obtaining 'Restricted Area Permit' as required under the Foreigners
(Protected Areas) Order, 1958 issued by the Government of India. It is
further said there, that the petitioners were moving from place to place in
D the districts of Kohima, Phek and Tuensang in the company of insurgents
and secessionist groups and indulging in activities, which were detrimental
to the security of India, maintenance of public order of the State of
Nagaland and also maintenance of relations of India with foreign powers.
Then, it is said that petitioner-1, David Patrick Ward during his visit to
various places in the State of Nagaland was inciting the feelings of Naga
E people against the established Government. A reference is made to a
signed Press release said to have been issued by petitioner-1 on 3.12.1991
on his views that the Naga people should freely exist in peace as an
independent nation. From the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy
Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India, it
F is disclosed that the petitioners 1 and 2 took Visas from the High Commis-
sion of India at London to visit India for a holiday and the places they
desired to visit in India were Delhi-Agra-Calcutta. Coming to the profes-
sion of Petitioner-2, the High Commission of India at London is said to
have been informed as 'Chef. After coming to India, they have entered the
G State of Nagaland without the 'Restricted Area Permits' and joined tho
Naga Federal Government activists whose goal was the achievement of "
People's Republic of Nagaland and had prepared a documentary withou
the permission of the authorities, to incite the people of Nagaland agains
the Government of India. As is seen from the incidents adverted to in th•
grounds of detention, petitioner-1 had even tried to evade arrest from th.,
H Indian security forces. The petitioners have lived with Naga insurgents i'l
DAVID PATRICKv. U.0.1. [VENKATACHALA,J.] 41

their gang and participated in their activities, for almost three months. If A
regard is had to be pretext on which the petitioners had entered India, the
non- disclosure by them of the real purpose for which they were visiting
India, and attempts made by them to evade arrest from the Indian security
forces by opening fire against them, it would be-difficult to think that their
deportation from India will not make them return to India by some means
or the other to carry on the prejudicial activities which were carried on by B
them before their detention, along with Naga insurgents and secessionists,
against the established State Government and the Cental Government.

If under these circomstances, the· authorities are not in favour of
deporation of the petitoners to their country, we cannot find fault with C
them.

6. Transfer to Tihar Jai~ Delhi:

The last point which requires to be considered is the prayer of the
petitioners that they may be shifted to Tihar Jail, Delhi. In support of the D
prayer, Article 36 of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is relied
on. Article 36{1)(c) says as follows:

"(c) Consular officers shall have the right to visit a national
of the sending State who is in person, custody or detention,
to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for E
his legal representation. They shall also have the right to
visit any national of the sending State who is in prison,
custody or detention in their district in pursuance of a
judgment. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain
from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, F
custody or detention if he expressly opposes such action."

It may be easy for the officers of the British High Commission in
New Delhi to visit the petitioners and arrange for their legal representation
if they are put in Tihar Jail at Delhi. But in our considered opinion, that
alone cannot be the criterion, if consideration of security comes to the fore. G
In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, it is made clear
that the security r~nsiderations have made the authorities concerned to
take the view that keeping of the petitioners in Naini Jail at Allahabad
would be most appropriate. It is said in the counter affidavits that whenever
visits are desired by the officials of the British High Commission, ap- H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A propriate arrangements will be made for their easy access to the
petitioners. In the instant case, we have pointed out while dealing with the
contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners are those determined to fight for the cause of Naga insurgents,
as members of a U.K. based organisation known as 'Naga Vigil'. If the
B authorities concerned who have taken a conscious· decision, as is disclosed
from their counter affidavits, that the need of security requires that the
petitioners should be kept in Naini Jail at Allahabad and have come
forward to offer all facilities to the officers of the British High Commission
desirous of visiting them at Naini Jail, Allahabad to have easy access to the
petitioners, we find it difficult to grant the prayer in the petitions seeking
C the shifting of the petitioners from Naini Jail, Allahabad to Tihar Jail,
Delhi.

When the authorities have come forward to afford all facilities to the
officers of British High Commission who desire to visit the petitioners in
Naini Jail at Allahabad, it cannot be said that they are acting contrary to
D the view expres.sed by this Court inAK Roy (supra) as to need of affording
facilities to those who desire to meet deteniis in Jail. However, we are not
to be understood that the Court is powerless to examine the conditions of
preventive detention under Section 5 where a case warrants such examina-
tion. But in this case, having regard to its facts and a conscious decision
E taken by the respondents, from the point of view of security, to detain the
petitioners in Naini Jail, Allahabad, we do not think we could concede to
their request to shift them to Tihar Jail at Delhi, more so, when the counter
affidavit indicates that whenever visits are desired by officers of British
High Commission, proper arrangements will be made in that behalf.

F In the result, the Writ Petitions are dismissed.

T.NA. Petitions dismissed.