Holding

A preventive detention order is invalid where material or vital facts, such as an acquittal, are withheld from the detaining authority, thereby vitiating the required subjective satisfaction.

Summary

The petitioner, D.S. Agarwal, was detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑Social Activities Act, 1985 on 17 September 1988 on the ground that he was a dangerous person likely to disturb public order. The grounds of detention listed five criminal cases, two of which (serial Nos. 2 and 3) were shown as pending, although the petitioner had actually been acquitted in those cases before the detention order was issued. The petitioner contended that the non‑disclosure of these acquittals, a material and vital fact, vitiated the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction required under Section 6 of the Act, rendering the order illegal. The respondents argued that each case constituted a separate ground and that the acquittals were irrelevant. Relying on precedents such as S.K. Nizamuddin and Asha Devi, the Court held that withholding material facts that could influence the detaining authority’s mind defeats the requirement of subjective satisfaction and invalidates the detention order. Consequently, the Court set aside the order and directed the immediate release of the petitioner.

Issues considered

The non‑disclosure of the petitioner’s acquittals, a material and vital fact, vitiates the subjective satisfaction required for a preventive detention order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑Social Activities Act, 1985.
Whether a preventive detention order is invalid if material facts influencing the detaining authority’s mind are withheld or not considered.
Whether an acquittal in criminal cases affects the validity of a preventive detention order.

Legislation cited

Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985s. 3(2), s. 6, s. 9(2)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 302, s. 307, s. 324, s. 332

Subjects

preventive detentionsubjective satisfactionmaterial factacquittalArticle 22(5) of ConstitutionGujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Actdetention order validityvitiated satisfaction

Judgment

DHARAMDAS SHAMLAL AGARWAL
A
v.
POLICE COMMISSIONER & ANR.
'
MARCH 16, 1989

[B.C. RAY AND S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.] B

Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985: SS. 3(2)
& 6-Detention Order-Validity of-Material and vital fact having a

.. bearing on the issue not placed before detaining authority-Held,
requisite subjective satisfaction vitiated by non-1Jpplication of mind.

The petitioner was detained under an order dated 17th c
September, 1988 made by the detaining authority under sub-s. (2) of
s. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 with a
view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention mentioned five
offen~es registered against him with police records, out of which the D
first one under s. 324 IPC was stated to have been compromised, the
second under. s. 332 IPC and the third under ss. 148 and 307 IPC
respectively were stated to be pending trial, the fourth under s. 302 IPC
was stated not proved, while the fifth under s. 302 IPC was stated to be
in the court.
E
The Government approved the said order on 21st September,
1988. The detenu submitted his representation dated 22nd September,
1988 to the first respondent who by his order dated 30th September,
1988 rejected the same. He thereupon, filed this petition under Article
32 of the Constitution.
F
It was contended for the petitioner that he has been acquitted even
on 26th August, 1988 in. the case shown at serial No. 2 iu the Table
appended to the grounds of detention, and on 6th June, 1988 in the case
shown at Serial No. 3, that this material and vital fact of his acquittal in
the said cases had not been placed before the detaining authority and
this non-placing and the consequent non-consideration of the said mate- G
rial likely to influence the mind of the detaining authority vitiates the
subjective satisfaction and invalidates the detention order, that the
names of his so-called associates were nowhere disclosed which fact
would show either the authority did not know as to who these associates
were or knowing their names has refrained from furnishing it to the
detenu thereby disabling him to make his effective representation, and H
43
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.

that the grounds of detention otherwise were vague or deficient. For the )4
A respondent it was contended that each activity of tile petitioner was a
separate ground of detention and that the fact that the petitioner was
acquitted in the said cases was of no consequence.

Allowing the writ petition,
B
HELD: The requisite subjective satisfaction, the formation of
which is a condition precedent to passing of a detention order, will get
vitiated if material or vital facts which would have bearing on the issue
and weighed the satisfaction of the detaining authority one way or the ,..
other and influenced his mind are either withheld or suppressed by the
sponsoring authority or ignored and not considered by the detaining
c authority before issuing the detention order. [5 ID-EI

In the instant case, at the time when the detaining authority
passed the detention order the vital fact of acquittal of the detenu in
cases mentioned at serial Nos. 2 and 3 had not been brought to his notice
D and on the other hand it was withheld and the detaining authority was
given to understand that the trial of those cases was pending. This
non-placing of the material fact resulting in non-application of the mind
of the detaining authority to the said fact has vitiated the requisite
subjective satisfaction, rendering the impugned detention order
invalid. The same is, therefore, set-aside. The detenu be set at liberty
E forthwith. [51E, F, G, H]

S.K. Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 2353;
Suresh Mahato v. The District Magistrate, Burdwan & Ors., AIR 1975
SC 728; Asha Devi v. Additional Secretary to the Government of
Gujarat & Anr., [1979] 2 SCR 215 and Sita Ram Somani v. State of
F Rajasthan & Ors., [1986] 2 SCC 86 referred to.

Shiv Rattan Makim v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] Supp. (3)
SCR 843 and Subharta v. State of West Bengal [1973] SCC 250,
distinguished.

G ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 537 ,.._
of 1988. -"

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

H
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, M.K. Pandit, P.H. Parekh, J.H. Parekh and
M.N. Sompal for the Petitioner. r
D.S. AGARWAL v. POLICE COMMR. [PANDIAN. J.] 45

P.S."Poti, Mrs. H. Wahi and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents.
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. RATN AVEL PANDIAN, J. This is a petition nnder Article 32
of the Constitutiqn of India challenging the legality and validity of the
order of detention dated 17.9.1988 passed by the detaining authority B
(the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City) clamping upon the
petitioner (the detenu herein) the impugned order of detention under
Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social
Activities Act, 1985 on the ground that he on the materials placed
before him was satisfied that it was necessary to make this order of
detention with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any C
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of
Ahmedabad City and directed the detenu to be detained in Sabarmati
Central Prison. In pursuance of the said order, the detenu has been
detained in the aforesaid prison.

The Government approved the order of detention on 21.9.1988. D
The detenu submitted his representation dated 22.9.1988 to the 1st
respondent who by his order dated 30.9.1988 rejected the same. Hence
this Writ Petition.

Before adverting to the arguments advanced by Dr. Chitale, on
behalf of the detenu; we would like to produce the relevant portion of E
the grounds of detention which reads thus:

" ...... As such you are a dangerous person as defined in
section 2(c) of the said Act, and known as dangerous
person. As you with the aid of your Associates create
dangerous atmosphere in 1the said vicinity you disturb f
public peace, maintenance and as such following offences
were registered against you with Police Records, and in
which you were arrested.

Sr. P/ice Offence Section Decision
No. Station Regd. No. G

1. Sabarmati 140/81 324, 114 Compro-
IPC mised
16.2.82

2. Sherkotda 411/82 332,323, P.T. H
114IPC
ii. 46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.

A
3. Sherkotda 412/82 PIC 147, 148 P. T.
149, 307 BP Act
':it--
"
135(1)

4. Sherkotda 452/85 IPC302, Not
201,34 proved
B
5. Sabarmati 346/87 IPC302, In the
109, 34 Court

While considering complaints, in the above cases, Identifi-
cation (Chehra Nissan) Register, and charge-sheets
contents carefully, it is found that you, with the aid of your
c associates, in the said area, give threats to innocent people,
and cause injuries to them by showing dangerous weapons
that like Acid, Knife, sharp weapons. As such you commit
offences punishable for causing injuries to human body and
which are punishable in Indian Penal Code .......... "
D
Dr. Chitale, the learned counsel for the petitioner took us
through the grounds of detention and the other relev'ant records,
particularly the copies of the statements of witnesses on the basis of
which the detaining authority has claimed to have drawn his subjective
satisfaction for passing this impugned order of detention and raised ·+
E various contentions inter-alia contending; (1) The material and vital
fact, namely, the acquittal of the detenu in the cases registered in
Crime Nos. 411and412 of 1982 of Sherkotda Police Station as shown
at Serial Nos. 2 and 3 in the table appended to grounds of detention
which fact would have influenced the minds of the detaining authority
one way or the other on the question whether or not to make the
F detention order, has not been placed before the detaining authority
and this non-placing and the consequent non-consideration of the said
material likely to influence the minds of the detaining authority
vitiates the subjective satisfaction and invalidates the detention order;
(2) Leave apart, the non-disclosure of the names of the witnesses on
whose statements the detaining authority placed reliance to draw his
G subjective satisfaction, claiming privilege under Section 9(2) of the
Act, the grounds of detention otherwise are vague or deficient and
lacking details with regards to the names of the 'associates', for the
disclosure of which no privilege could be claimed and hence it was not
possible for the detenu in the absence of the uames of the so called
<
'associates' to make an effective representation against the order of
H detention, the deprivation of which amounts to an infringement of the
l.
D.S. AGARWAL v. POLICE COMMR. [PANDIAN, J.] 47

constitutional safeguard provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitu-
tion of India; (3) Though the authority has mentioned in more than
A
one place the words 'your associates' which fact evidently should have
influenced the mind of the detaining authority in making this
impugned order, the names of the associates are nowhere disclosed
which fact would show either the authority did not know as to who the
associates were or knowing the names of the associates, he has re- B
frained from furnishing it to the detenu thereby disabling the detenu to
make his effective representation; and (4) The materials placed before
the detaining authority were hardly sufficient to draw any conclusion
that the alleged activities of the detenu were detrimental to the
''maintenan·ce of public order.-"

A plethora of decisions were cited by Dr. Chitale. The learned C
-f.. counsel for the respondent, Mr. Poti vehemently urged that the
contentions urged by Dr. Chitale do not merit consideration and the
detaining authority in the present case is justified in passing this order
of detention. Mr. Poti also cited number of decisions in support of his
submissions. D

We shall now examine these contentions in seriatim.

In the grounds of detention five cases registered against the
detenu in respect of which he had been arrested are taken into consi-
deration by the detaining authority to draw his subjective satisfaction E
that the detenu was disturbing the maintenance of public order. Out of
the five cases, two cases mentioned under Serial Nos. 2 and 3 are
shown as 'P .T. ', that is pending trial. In other wo,ds on 17.9.88 i.e. the
date of passing the order of detention, the detaining authority was of
the opinion that the trials of both the cases were not over, though
actually the detenu had been acquitted even on 26.8.1988 in the case F
relating to Crime No. 411of1982 and on 5.6.88 in the case relating to
Crime No. 412/82. Though the acquittal of both the cases are a<bnit~
ted, the date of acquittal of Crime No. 411/82 is given as 6.7.88 in the
.counter. In the Writ Petition two ground Nos. 10 and 11 are with
reference to these cases. They read as follows:
G
"10. The petitioner states that in the grounds of detention
the detaining authority has mentioned erroneously that
Case No. 411of1982 is pending. In fact, the said Case was
decided by the Court on 26.8.1988 and the petitioner was
acquitted by the judgment dated 26.9.1988 delivered by the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 7, Ahmedabad. When H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.

A grounds of detention were passed and when the detention
order was passed in September, 1988, the detaining autho-
rity has taken a non-existing fact into account that the sai.d
case was pending trial. The detention is liable to be
quashed on this ground also.

B 11. Likewise, the grounds of detention mentioned
that Case No. 412 of 1982 is pending which is erroneous. r
The said case was decided on 5.6.1988 and the petitioner
was acquitted. The detention is liable to be quashed for
~
taking this non-existing ground." ,..
These two grounds are answered by the detaining authority in
c paragraphs 12 and 13 of his affidavit in reply sworn in December 1988
which read thus: ,)-

"12. With reference to the averments made in para 10 of
the petition, I say that the same are not true' and denied
D hereby. I say that the petitioner was acquitted in Crime
No. 411 of 1982 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court
no. 7, Ahmedabad by an order dated 6. 7.1988. However, it
is submitted that each activity of the peti_tioner is a separate
ground of detention against the petitioner and, therefore,
even if the petitioner is acquitted in the said Criminal Case, +
E the detention order is not vitiated on that count.

13. With reference to the averments made in para 11 of the ;...ii
petitioner, I say that the same are not true and denied
hereby. I say that it is true that in the Criminal Case
No. 412/82 the petitione; was acquitted by the Sessions
'i<
F Court No. 20, Ahmedabad on 5.6.1984. However, as •
submitted hereinabove, each activity of the petitioner is a
separate ground for detention of the petitioner, and, there-
"".
fore, the fact that the petitioner was acquitted in Criminal
Case no. 411 (Sec 412) of 1982 has no bearing on the deten-
lion order and the detention order cannot be said to be
G vitiated on that count."
.---.
Though as per Section 6 of the Act the grounds of detention are
severable and the order of detention shall not be deemed to be invalid
or inoperative if one ground or some of the grounds are invalid, the
question that arises for consideration is whether the detaining au tho-
H rity was really aware of the acquittal of the detenu in those two cases
D.S. AGARWAL v. POLICE COMMR. [PANDIAN, J.] 49

) mentioned under Serial Nos. 2 and 3 on the date of passing the im-
A
pugned order. ·It is surprising that the detaining authority who ~as
specifically mentioned in the grounds of detention that the petitioner's
( cases 2 and 3 were pending trial on the date of passing the order of
detention has come forward with a sworn statement in reply, filed
nearly three months after signing the grounds of detention, tha5 he
knew that the accused had been acquitted in both the cases. The aver- B
"l ments made in paragraphs 12 and 13 in the affidavit in reply are not
}. clear at what point of time the detaining authority came to know of the
acquittal of the detenu in both the cases. At any rate, it is not his
~
specific case that the fact of acquittal was placed before him for con-
sideration at the time of passing the impugned order. .But what the
authority repeatedly states is that "each activity of the petitioner is a
separate ground of detention" and adds further that "the fact that the
c
-+ petitioner was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 411/82 and 412/82 is of
no consequence". We are unable to comprehend the explanation given
by the detaining authority. It has been admited by Mr. Poti that the
sponsoring authority initiated the proceedings and placed all the mate-
rials before the detaining authority on 14.9.1988 by which date the D
petitioner had already been acquitted in the above said two cases.
Thus it is clear that either the sponsoring authority was not aware of
the. acquittals of those two· cases or even having been aware of the
~- acquittals had not placed that material before the detaining authority.
So at the time of signing the order of detention, the authority should
have been ignorant of the acquittals. Evidently to get over the plea of E
the detenu in the writ petition in this regard for the first time in the
counter, the detaining authority is giving a varying statement as if he
knew about the acquittal of the detenu in both the cases. As ruled by
this Court in Shiv Ratan Makim v. Union of India & Ors., I1985] Supp.
.:o\ (3) SCR 843 at page 848 "even if a criminal prosecution fails and an
' order of detention is then made, it would not invalidate the order of F
~ detention" because as pointed out by this Court in Subharta v. State of
West Bengal, I 1973] 3 SCC 250 "the purpose of preventive detention
being_ different from conviction and punishment and subjective satis-
faction being necessary in the former while proof beyond reasonable

... doubt being necessary in the latter", the order of detention would not
be bad merely because the criminal prosecution has failed. In the
present case, we would make stress, not on the question of acquittal
but on the question of non-placing of the material and vital fact of
G

acquittal which if had been placed, would have influenced the minds of
the detaining authority one way or the other. Similar questions arose
in Sk. Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 2353 in which
the detention order was passed under the provisions of Maintenance of H
l
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989) 2 S.C.R.
.. ~
A Internal Security Act. In that case the ground of detention was
founded on a solitary incident of theft of aluminium wire alleged to
have been committed by the detenu therein. In respect of that incident
a criminal case was filed which was ultimately dropped. It appeared on )
record that the history sheet of the detenu which was before the
detaining authority did not make any reference to the criminal case
B
launched against the petitioner, much less to the fact that the prosecu-
tion had been dropped or the date when the petitioner was discharged
from the case. In connection with this aspect this Court observed as
follows:

"We should have thought that the fact that a criminal case
c is pending against the person who is sought to be proceeded
against by way of preventive detention is a very material
circumstance which ought to be placed before the District
Magistrate. That circumstance might quite possible have an
impact on his decision whether or not to make an order of
detention. It is not altogether unlikely that the District
D Magistrate may in a given case take the view that since a
criminal case is pending against the person sought to be
detained, no order of detention should be made for the
present, but the criminal case should be allowed to run its
full course and only if it fails to result in conviction, then -+
preventive detention should be resorted to. It would be
E most unfair to the person sought to be detained not to
disclose the pendency of a criminal case against him to the
District Magistrate."

It is true that the detention order in that case was set aside on
other grounds but the observation extracted above is quite significant.
F The above observation was subsequently approved by this Court in
Suresh Mahato v. The District Magistrate, Burdwan and Others, AIR
1975 SC 720 and in Asha Devi v. Additional Chief Secretary to the
Government of Gujarat & Anr., [19791 2 SCR 215. In the latter case
(i.e. Asha Devi), it has been pointed out:
G " ........ if material or vital facts which would influence
the minds of the detaining authority one way of the other
on the question whether or not to make the detention
order, are not placed before or are not considered by the
detaining authority it would vitiate its subjective satisfac-
tion rendering the detention order illegal."
H
D.S. AGARWAL v. POLICE COMMR. !PANDIAN, J.] 51

J__ In Sita Ram Somani v. State of Rajasthan and Others, [19861 2 A
sec 86 certain documents which were claimed to have been placed
before the Screening Committee in the first instance were not placed
before the detaining authority and consequently there was no occasion
for the detaining authority to apply its mind to the relevant material. In
the circumstances of that case, a principal point was raised before this
Court that there was no application of mind by the detaining authority B
-J to those vital materials which were with-held. This Court, while

"'
•' answering that contention observed thus:
"No one can dispute the right of the detaining authority to
make an order of detention if on a consideration· of the
relevant material, the detaining authority came to the con-
clusion that it was necessary to detain the appellant.' But c
'I- the questin was whether the detaining authority applied its
mind to relevant considerations. If it did not, the appellant
would be entitled to be released."
From the above decisions it emerges that the requisite subjective
satisfaction, the formation of which is a condition precedent to passing D
of a detention order will get vitiated if material or vital facts which
would have bearing on the issue and weighed the satisfaction of the
detaining authority one way or the other and influenced his mind are
either withheld or suppressed by the sponsoring authority or ignored
-\.- and not considered by the detaining authority before issuing the deten-
tion order. It is clear to our mind that in the case on hand, at the time E
when the detaining authority passed the detention order this vital fact,
namely, the acquittals of the detenu in case Nos. mentioned at serial
Nos. 2 and 3 have not been brought to his notice and on the other hand
they were withheld and the detaining authority was given to under-
:X, stand that the trial of those cases were pending. The explanation given
by the learned counsel for the respondents, as we have already pointed F
·~ out, cannot be accepted for a moment. The result is that the non-
'
placing of the material fact-namely the acquittal of detenu in the
above-said two cases resulting in non-application of minds of the
detaining authority to the said fact has vitiated the requisite subjective
satisfaction, rendering the impugned detention order invalid.
~
G
~-t' detentionSince we have now come to the conclusion that the order of
is to be set aside on the first ground itself, we are not
,
..
inclined to traverse on other grounds. In the premises, the impugned
order is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. We direct that the
detenu be set at liberty forthwith.
H
P.S.S Petition allowed.