Holding

The detention order was not vague as it clearly set out the overt acts of each accused, and the High Court's order quashing it was set aside.

Summary

The State of Tamil Nadu appealed against a Madras High Court order that had quashed a preventive detention order issued on 2 August 1999 against Baskar and three others. The High Court had held the detention order vague because it allegedly did not specify the exact overt act attributable to each accused. The Supreme Court examined the detention order, which detailed the incident on 24 June 1999, describing how the accused alighted from a vehicle, were armed with knives, threatened the complainant, created terror, and hurled a soda bottle at the public. The Court found no vagueness, stating the order sufficiently narrated the acts of each accused, and observed that the High Court failed to indicate what further particulars could be added. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's quashing order, noting that the period of detention had already elapsed, so the detainee need not surrender. The appeal was therefore decided in favour of the State.

Issues considered

Whether the preventive detention order is vague for not specifying the exact overt act of each accused.
Whether the High Court erred in quashing the detention order on the ground of vagueness.
Whether a detainee whose detention period has expired must be required to surrender.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 21, s. Article 226

Subjects

preventive detentionvaguenesshabeas corpusdetention orderconstitutional lawArticle 21Article 226criminal appeal

Judgment

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. A
v.
BA SKAR

FEBRUARY 20, 2001

[S.N. VARIAVA AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] B

Criminal law

Preventive Detention-Constitution of India-Articles 21 & 226-Writ
of Habeas Corpus-High Court quashing order of detention on ground of C
vagueness-Held, on facts, detention order clearly sets out the sequence of
events-Detention upheld-Further held, period of detention being over,
deten11 need not surrender.

The Appellant filed the appeal against the quashing of a detention order
of Respondent by the High Court in a Habeas Corpus Petition on the ground D
that the Detention Order is vitiated on ground of vagueness as the-exact overt
act attributable to each one of the accused has not been set out.

Disposing of the Appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. There is no vagueness in the Detention Order. The Detention
E
Order clearly sets out that the Respondent along with T, P and K got down
from the Tata Sumo car and that all of them were armed with knives. The
Detention Order clearly sets out that the complainant was threatened. The
.,. Detention Order sets out that these persons terrorised everyone at the spot
and one of them picked up a soda bottle from the nearby shop and hurled- the F
same against the public. The Detention Order set out that the normalcy of
the area was completely dislocated as terror and panic had been created at
the spot. (1141-CI

2. The High Court has failed to clarify what further and better
particulars could have been given in the Detention Order. The impugned G
Order cannot be sustained and it is set aside. (I 141-DI

3. The Detention Order is of 1999. The same had been quashed by the
High Court in April 2000. The period of detentio.n is over. Hence, this is not
a case where the· Detenu should be made to s\irrender to undergo the H
1139
1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] l S.C.R

A remaiiiing period ofdetention.11141-EI

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal
No. 207 of 200 I.

From the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.2000 of the Madras High Court
B in H.C.P. No. 1404of1999.

R. Mohan and V.G. Pragasam for the Appellants.

Vijay Panjwani, (A.C.) for the Respondent.

C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted.

Heard parties.

D This Appeal is against an Order dated 7th April, 2000. By this Order a
Detention Order dated 2nd August, 1999 has been quashed on the ground
that the Detention Order is vitiated on ground of vagueness as the exact overt
act attributable to each one of the accused has not been set out.

We have read the Detention Order. The Detention Order sets out as i
E follows:

"On 24-6-99 at about 1100 hours Tvi. Thiruvengadarn and his associate
Baskar @ Reddy Baskar, Parthasarathy and Kandan got down from a
Tata Sumo car bearing Registration No. TN-01-P 2525. Thiru Palani
noticed them armed with knife. Thiru Thiruvengadam noticing Thiru ,_
F Palani came near Thiru Palani and by uttering "when we cut your
brother Ravichandran you went and gave complaint to the police.
Now I am cutting you. Let me see who will give complaint for this.
You die with this cut", terrorised him and rushed to cut him over his
head. Thiru Palani warded off the attack with his right hand. However,
the knife fell over his right fore-11rm and caused bleeding injury to him.
G Thiru Palani raised hue and cry. A huge crowd gathered at the spot.
Thiru Thiruvengadam and others by brandishing the knife terrorised
everyone at the spot .by uttering "if any body comes near we will
remove the leg, hand", and also picked up soda water bottles from the
nearby shop of Thiru Srinivasan and hurled the same against the
H public. The bottles fell on the road side broken into pieces and the
STATEOFTAMILNADUv. BASKAR[S.N. VARIAVA,J.] 1141
broken pieces scattered all over the roadside. The public who were A
proceeding in their vehicles noticed and turned back their vehicles in
the same direction from which they came. The nearby shop-owners
noticed and closed down their shops and suspended their business.
The normalcy in that area was totally dislocated. Thus they have
created terror and panic at the spot."
B
In our view, there is no vagueness in the said Detention Order. The
Detention Order clearly sets ou~ that the Respondent along with
Thiruvengadam, Parthasarathy and Kandan got down from the Tata Sumo car
and that all of them were armed with knives. The Detention Order clearly sets
out that the complainant was threatened. The Detention Order sets out these C
persons terrorised everyone at the spot and one of them picked up a soda
bottle from the nearby shop and hurled the same against the public. The
Detention Order sets out that the normalcy of the area was completely
dislocated as terror and panic had been created at the spot.

We fail to see what further and better particulars could have been D
given in the Detention Order. In the impugned Order the learned Judge has
failed to clarify what further and better partiCulars could have been given in
the Detention Order. In our view, the impugned Order cannot be sustained
and it is accordingly set aside.

However, the Detention Order was of 1999. The same had been quashed E
by the High Court in April 2000. The period of detention is over. In our view,
this is not a case where the Detenu should be made to surrender to undergo
the remaining period of detention.

The Appeal stands disposed off accordingly. There will be no Order
as to costs. F
V.M Appeal disposed of.