Holding

A detention order under the National Security Act is not invalidated by the absence of specific supply or service particulars in the order itself, provided those particulars are disclosed in the grounds of detention.

Summary

The State of Assam detained Sarat Mudoi under the National Security Act, 1980, Section 3(2) read with 3(3), issuing an order that did not specify which of the 16 notified supplies or services were affected by his alleged conduct. The High Court quashed the detention, holding that the order must name the particular supply or service. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the omission of such particulars in the detention order invalidates it, given that the grounds of detention supplied to the detainee did contain the specifics. The Court held that the detainee’s right to make a representation is satisfied if the particulars are disclosed in the grounds of detention, even if not in the order itself, and that non‑specification in the order does not vitiate it. It further affirmed that the detaining authority may rely on past conduct and a reasonable apprehension of future repetition within any of the notified categories. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, upholding the detention order.

Issues considered

Whether a preventive detention order under the National Security Act, 1980 must specify the particular supplies or services affected in the order itself or if disclosure in the grounds of detention suffices.

Legislation cited

National Security Act, 1980s. 3(2), s. 3(3)

Subjects

preventive detentionNational Security Actspecification of groundsright of representationsupplies and servicesstatutory interpretation

Judgment

957

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NOWGONG & ANR.
A
v.

SARATMUDOI

September 14, 1983 .
B
[RANGANATH MISRA AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.] '
.
National Security Act, 1980-Section 3(2) read with s. 3(3)-Detenlion
'order not containing particulars of which of the specified supplies and services-
ajfected-Va/id.
c
The respondent challenged the order of his detCntion under the National
Security Act on the ground that since the detaining authority did not specify.
in the order of detention as to which particular supplies and services he ha~ i.i:J.
mind while making it, the order of detentioa was vitiated. The High Court
set aside the order of detention. In appeal it wa·s submitted that it would. be
impossible for the detaining autq.ority to specify any of the 16 items of services· D
and supplies included in the notification in re:Sard to the future conduct of
the detenu.

Allowing the appeal,
' '
HELD: Under the ~Act the detenu is entitled to make a representation
against the order of detention. It is manifest from the statutory scheme that
E
his right to represent is after the grounds are ~erved on the, detenu. The right
of the detenu to make a representation should be without fetters and as wide
as possible. Since the citizen is detained without trial and on the basis of
satisfaction of a notified authority the right to represent ·assumes importance.
· Th~ detenu would be in a position to effectively represt:nt only when specific
particulars are provided to hi:n ~nd .the grounds are intentled to provide that F
material to him. A full disclosure made in t.he grounds .of detention in no way
prejudices the right guaranteed to the detenu to make an effective represen-
tation challenging his detention. TherefOrc, non-specification of the required
particulars in the Order of detention would not vhiate the order as long as the
particulars are provided in t'1e grounds in support of the order of detention
which in quick succession of.t.he detention order are served on the detenu.
[960 B-E]
G
. ~-\
It is open to the detaining authority to take note of the past conduct of
a de~enu. I~ past conduct confined to any or all of the 16 'item~ in the
notification could be satisfied, the detaining authority could also on the basis
of reasonable apprehension of repetition of such conduct in future make an
order of d~tention for hs p!evention. [960 H; 961 A]

Dehu Maluo v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 816, referred to.
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983] 3 S.C.R.

CRIMINAL A PPELIATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 468
A of 1983:

Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
2nd February, 1983 of the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule (HC)
No. 4/83.
B
M.M. Abdul Kha<{er and S.K. Nandy for the Appellants.

V.M. Tarkunde and Mrs. Manik Karanjawala with him, for the
Respon,dent. ,

c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by '
RANGANATH MISRA, J: The detaining authority under section
3 (2) read withs. 3 (3) of the National Security Act, 1980 ('Al:(' fo'r
short) being the .District Magistrate of Nowgong and the State of
Assam assail the decision of the High Court at Gauhati quashing the
D order of detention.

On October 20, 1982, the District Mag[strate made the
following order :

E "Whereas I am satisfied from the dossier submi~ted
by Superintendent of Police, Nowgong that it is necessary
to prevent Sfiri Sarat Mudoi s/o Shri Renn Mudoi, village
Senchows, P. S. Nowgong from acting in any manner
prejudicial to maintenance of public order and main·
'_!., --
tenance of supplies and services essential to the
F community, I. S. Kablian, IA.S., District Magistrate,
Nowgong, hereby in exercise of powers conferred under
section 3 (2) read 'with section 3 Ql of National Security
Act, 1980, direct that Shri Sara! Mudoi be detained with
immediate effect until further orders".
G
In the grounds of detention which were supplied to the detenu
within the time provided by law, six grounds'were specified. Before
the High Court several contentions were raised including the one to
the effect that if the detaining authority does not specify in the order
' ' of deiention as to which particular supply and/or service he had in
H
mind while making it, the order of detention is vitiated. After
hearing counsel for the parties, the High Court came to the
conclusion :
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE v. SARAT MUDOI (Ranganath Misra, J.) 959

"We are of the view that as while passing. the order
of detention the authority has to specify the particular
prejudicial activity whose prevention he has in mind, so
1.llso he must specify the particular supply and service·
which according to him is being prejudicially affected by
· the activities of the detenu. The notified categories of_
Supplies and services thus really get as if implanted in the
Act and an order of detention on this score mnst have
B
reference to one or more specified · suplies and services
forming part of notified categ-0ries. Any other view would
also pose a possibility of abnse of power as a result of
absence of full application of mind."
c
and set aside the order of detention.
• I

At the stage of notice on the special leave petition this Court
on March 10, 1983, made the following order :

"Issue notice to the respondent returnable within a
week confined to the question· as to whether according
to the ratio laid down by this Court in A. K. Roy v.
Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 710), it is necessary to
specify in the order of detention itself the particular
supplies and services essential to the community which are E
affected by the activities of the detenu or will it suffice if
it is mentioned in the grounds for detention".

On behalf of the State this Couri was told that even if the
·appeal was allowed, the respondent would not be detained for the F
unexpired portion of the period.

The short question that survives for_ consideration, therefore;
is whether without the particulars of supplies and Services specified
in the order of detention, it is bad. In A.K. Roy's case and the
connected matters this Court took the view that no person could be d
detained wider s. 3 (2) of the Act with a view to preventing him
from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies
and services essential to the community unless by a law or notifica-
tion made or published fairly in advance the supplies and services
the maintenance of which is regarded as essential to the community R
nd in respect of which the order of detention is proposed to be
passed are made known properly to the public. Accordingly,
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983] 3 s.c.R.

by a. notifieation on February 8, 1982, 16 specified supplies and
A services. were notified as essential to the community and this
notification was duly published in the Gazette of India, Extra·
ordina,ry issue of the same day. Under the Act the detenu is
· entitled to make a represeutatiou against the order of detention. It ·
is manifest from the statutory scheme that his right to represent is
after the grounds are served on the detenu. It is the pronounced
B view of this Court that such right should be without fetters and as
wide as possible, Since the citizen is detained without trial and on
the basis of satisfaction of a notified authority the right to represent
assumes importance. The detenu would be in a position-to effectively
represent only when, specific particulars are provided to him and the
0
j grounds are intended to provide that material to him. Mr. Tarkunde
who appeared amicus curiae fairly agreed that it is not necessary that-
the specification should be in the order of detention and it would be
adequate to enable the detenu to make an. effective representation if
the particulars are provided in the grounds of detention .. We are
D inclined to take the view that a full disclosure made in the grounds
in no .way prejudices the right guaranteed to the detenu. to make an
effective representation challenging his detention. Therefore, non· ·
specification of the required particulars in the order of detention _.__ .
would not vitiate the order as long as the· particulars are provided
E in the grounds in support of the order -Of detention which in quick
succession of the detention order are served on the detenu .. Counsel
for the appellants argued that while it would be possible for the
particulars to be provided with reference io past conduct it would be
difficult to specify' any of the 16 items of servkes and supplies
included in the notification in .regard to future conduct of the detenu
'ana, therefore, to require the detaining authority io so specify woulq
be' asking for the performance of something impossible.

In view of the limited question on which notice was issued, this
'itspCct strictly does not fall for consideration. We also do no.I find
any merit in this stand.

'It was pointed out by this Court in Debu Mahto v. State of
'Wl"sl B~nga/(1), that ihe basis for ap order of preventive detention is
the reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of the person based
·upon his past conduct. It is open to the detaining authority to take
H 'noie of the past conduct of a detenu and apprehending repetition of
•
(2), A.I.R. 1974 S,<;;. 81~.
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE v. SARAT MUDOI (Ranganath Misra, J.) 96i
such conduct in future an order of detention can be made [with a
view to preventing such.action. If pasfconduct confined to any or
A.
all of the 16 of the items in tl:\e notification could be satisfied, the .
detaining authority could also on "the basis of reasonable apprehen~ ·
sion of repetition of such conduct .in future make an order of
detention for its prevention. We do not prop?se to say anything
more in view of the short question.to which the notice was confined.•
B
We are thankful to Mr. Tarkude for assisting us at the· hearing as
amicus curiae.

This disposes of the appeal.

H.S.K. Appeal allowed.

. '

.. ")