Holding

The detention order is invalid because it was based on extraneous material that could have influenced the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction, violating the requirements of the National Security Act and Article 22(5).

Summary

Vashisht Narain Karwaria was detained under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 after a police report described him as a hardened criminal with a gang and alleged many pending cases, although only one case was on record. The detaining authority relied on these extraneous statements, which were not part of the grounds of detention, to satisfy the subjective test for preventive detention. The petitioner argued that such material violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which requires that the detainee be given sufficient particulars to make an effective representation. The Supreme Court held that the consideration of material unrelated to the stated grounds vitiated the detention order, as it could have influenced the authority’s satisfaction. Consequently, the Court quashed the order, allowed the appeal and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether a preventive detention order under the National Security Act is invalid if the detaining authority considers extraneous material not mentioned in the grounds of detention.
Whether the detainee’s right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution to be informed of the particulars of the allegations is violated by the inclusion of such extraneous material.
Interpretation of Section 5A of the National Security Act with respect to multiple grounds for detention.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 22(5)
National Security Act, 1980s. 3(3), s. 5A

Subjects

preventive detentionNational Security Actextraneous materialsubjective satisfactionArticle 22(5)habeas corpusdetention order vitiated

Judgment

VASHISHT NARAIN KARWARIA
A
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

MARCH 28, 1990

B [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA
REDDY, JJ.]

National Security Act, 1980: Section 3(3), 5A: Preventive Deten-
tion-Subjective Satisfaction-Copies of police reports, alleging that
detenu is a hardened criminal and habitual offender against whom many
criminal cases are registered, placed before the detaining authority while
c only one criminal case was registered against the detenu-Held-
Detention order is vitiated for taking into consideration extraneous
material.

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 22(5)-Preventive Detention
D -Detention order-Grounds and documents communicated to detenu
-No details or particulars .furnished supporting allegations-Whether
deprival of making an effective and purposeful representation.

The petitioner was detained nnder section 3(3) of the National
...
Security Act, 1980, under an order passed by the detaining authority
E after consideration of the documents placed before it by the sponsoring
authority alleging that the detenu was a barlfened criminal and habitual
offender against whom many cases were registered. The documents
placed before the detaining authority were also served on the detenu
along with the ground of detention.

F The appellant filed a writ of Habeas Corpus in the High Court ,J
challenging the validity of the detention which was dismissed. Hence
this appeal. The appellant also filed a writ petition in this Court chal-
lenging his detention. In this appeal it was contended on behalf of the --_ _
appellant that the detaining authority had acted on irrelevant and

G
extraneous matters therefore the detention order is liable to be
quashed. On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the order of
detention was not invalid merely because some extraneous materials
I
were placed before the detaining authority since the impugned order ill
could be sustained on the material set out in the grounds of the deten-
tion itself.

H Allowing the appeal and disposing the Writ Petition, this Court,

2 l2
V.N. KARWARIA v. STATE OF U.P. 213

HELD: I. The averments made in the documents, the copies of
A
which are furnished to the detenu along with grounds of detention une-
quivocally and clearly spell out that the detenu is a hardened criminal,
having a gang under his control often committing heinous crimes, that
many cases are against the detenu are registered in various police sta-
tions and that he is in the habit of committing offences. These aver-
ments which are extraneous touching the character of the detenu though B
not referred to in the grounds of detention, might have influenced the
mind of the detaining authority to some extent one way or other in
reaching the subjective satisfaction to take the decision of directing the
detention of detenu. Had these extraneous materials not been placed
before the detaining authority, he might or might not have passed this
order. Therefore the detention order is suffering from the vice of con-
sideration of extraneous materials vitiating the validity of the order.
c
The detention order is therefore quashed. 1217!1-EI

Ram Krishna Paul v. The Government of West Bengal & Ors.,
[1972] I SCC 570; Snu. Pushpa v. Union of India..< Ors., [1980] Supp.
SCC 391; Merugu Satyanarayana v. State of A.P. & Ors., [1982] 3 SCC D
301 and Mehboob Khan Nawab Khan Pathan v. Police Commissioner,
Ahmedabad & Anr., [1989] 3 SCC 568; followed.

2. Section SA provides that where there are two or more grounds
covering various activities of the detenu, each activity is a separate
ground by itself and if one of the grounds is vague, non•existent, not E
relevant, not connected or not proximately connected with such person
or invalid for any other reason whatsoever, then that will not vitiate the
order of detention. In the instant case the impugned order has not been
made on two or more grounds covering various activities of the detenu,
but has been passed on the sole ground relatable to a single incident.
The conclusion arrived at is only on the basis that the extraneous mate- F
rials placed before the detaining authority might have influenced the
mind of the detaining authority, but not on the ground that one of the
grounds of the detention order has become invalid or inoperative for the
reasons mentioned in Section S(A)(a). Therefore the submission that the
factual material set out in the grounds of detention alone led to the
passing of the order with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in G
any manner prejudicial to the public order is not correct. 12188-DJ

Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary Govern-
ment of Kera/a & Ors., I1985] Supp. SCC 144; distinguished.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal H
No.219of 1990.
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

WIT!'f
A
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 92 of 1990'. '
y--
From the Judgment and Order dated 12. 12.1989 of the Allaha-
bad High C9urt in Habeas Corpus W.P. No. 13644 of 1989.
A. Jaitley, Additional Solicitor General, R.K. Jain, Yogeshwar
B Prasad, Gaurav Jain, Abha Jain, D. Bhandari, Ms. A. Subhashini and
R. B. Misra for the App~aring Parties.
The Judgmentof the Court was delivered by l
_{
S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. Leave granted m the Special
Leave Petition.
c This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 12.12.89 in
Habeas Corpus Writ Petitiion No. 13644/89 passed by the High Court
at Allahabad dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant,
Vashisht Narain Karwaria, the detenu herein.
~
The District Magistrate, Allahabad, in exercise of powers con-
D ferred on him under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act 1980
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') passed the impugned order of deten-
lion on 31.3.88 a~ainst the detenu on reaching his requisite subjective
satisfaction on cosideration of the materials placed before him that it
had become necessary to pass the detention order with a view to pre-
·venting the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
E maintenance of public order. )...

The salient and material facts which necessitated the detaining
authority to pass the impugned order, as set out in the grounds of
detention are as follows: --
F On 30.3.1988 at about 3.30 P.M. the auction of liquor shops for
the sale of Indian made foreign liquor was held in the campus of
Collectorate at Allahabad. A large number of bidders were present. •
Among them, the detenu along with his three other associates also
participated in the auction. At about 3.30 P.M. the auction of the
liquor shop within the area of Mooratganj took place. For this shop the
G first bid was from one Ajai Kumar for Rs. one lakh. The next bid for
the same shop was of Chedi Lal for Rs. one lakh and ten thousand.
The moment the said two persons made their bid, the detenu along
with his associates stood l\P in .the •presence of all prospective bidders
y
and told Ajai Kl\lllair, Chedi Lal and others that the above said shop
fell within his area and, therefore, if anybody dared to bid the shop in
H the auction he would shoot him and also the entire members of his
V.N. KARWARIA v. STATE OF U.P. [PANDIAN, J.] 215

family.So saying the detenu along with his associates advanced
towards Ajai Kumar and Chedi Lal threatening them with dire conse- A
quences. This created terror and panic among all the bidders. As the
situation was becoming worse, Shri Rana Pratap Singh, Station House
Officer along with other police officials advanced towards the detenu
and his associates to apprehend them. On seeing the police party
advancing, the detenu fired at the police party with his country made B
pistol. Fortunately, no body was hurt. The detenu, however, escaped
on being chased by the police party. The detenu fired another two
shots and hurled bombs on the police party while fleeing away. His
repeated firing and explosion of bombs created further panic and the
people assembled for bidding the auction started running away and the
nearby shopkeepers pulled down their shutters of their shops. The
vehicles parked there fled away. Thus the public order was completely c
disrupted. fn connection with this incident, a case was registered in
crime No. 22.1/88 in the Colenolganj Police Station under Section 307
and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The case is still under investigation.

On the basis of the above material the detaining authority on D
being satisfied that there was apprehension of commission of act of
violence at the hands of the detenu, which would be prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order, passed this impugned order and directed
the detenu to be kept under detention.

Admittedly, along with his ground of detention 4 documents E
were enclosed and served on the detenu. Those documents are:

(1) Report of S.S.P. Allahabad dated 31.3.1988.

(2) Report of the S.H.O. Colenolganj Police Station.
F
(3) Copy Chik No.199, Crime No. 221 of 1988 under Section
307 /506 I.P.C. in Colenolganj Police Station, Allahabad.

(4) Copy of G.D. No. 37 relating to the aforesaid offence.

The detenu challenged the validity of this order before the G
High Court, but became unsuccessful. Feeling aggrieved by the
impugned judgment, this appeal is now preferred.

Mr. R.K. Jain, the learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant made a number of submissions at the hearing,
one of which being that the sponsoring authority had placed H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

certain irrelevant and extraneous matters before the detaining
A
authority which should have influenced the mind of the detaining
authority and stealthily crept into the decision of the said autho-
rity directing detention of the detenu and as such the impugned
order is liable to be quashed. This argument was resisted by Shri
Dalveer Bhandari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
B the respondents that the detaining authority had not considered
any other material save the material referred to in the grounds of
detention'. Therefore, the short question for our consideration is
whether the sponsoring authority has placed before the detaining
authority any extraneous and irrelevant materials which might
have influenced the mind of the detaining authority. It cannot be
disputed-indeed there is none that the four documents referred
c to above, copies of which were furnished to the detenu have been
placed before the detaining authority. It follows that the detain-
ing authority passed this order only on consideration of the
above said materials. In the confidential letter dated 3 Jst March
1988 sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad to
D the detaining authority it is stated thus:

"It is stated that the accused is a hardened criminal and has
a gang. Such persons are committing heinous crimes often
which adversely affects the public order. There are many
cases/offences against accused Vashistha narayan registe-
E red in various police stations. It has become _his. habit to
commit offences .......... Hence I recommend that an
order for atleast 12 months detention be passed against
Shri Vashisht Narayan Karwaria alias Bhukkhal son of late
Shri Jagat Narayankarwaria, the aforesaid accused under
Section 3(2) of the above mentioned Act."
F

The preamble of the letter submitted by the Station House
Officer of Colcnolganj, Allahabad dated 31.3.1988 to the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Allahabad reads as follows:

G "It is submitted that Shri Vashisht Narayan Karwaria
alias Bhukkal, the aforesaid accused is a hardened criminal
and has a gang. In his' gang his son Kapil and two other big
offenders Ram Chandra Tripathi and Santosh Kumar
Tripathi son of Gaya Prasad, resident of Ganspur,
P.S. Poormufti, District Allahabad, are included_. These
H
V.N. KARWARIA v. STATE OF U.P. [PANDIAN, J.] 217

people often used to commit heinous crimes, by which
terror and fear prevails in the people. Many crimes are A
registered against Vashisht Narayan Karwaria in many
Police Stations."

The above averments made in the above two letters, the copies
of which are furnished to the detenu along with grounds of detention B
unequivocally and clearly spell out that the detenu is a hardened crimi-
nal, having a gang under his control often committing heinous crimes,
that many cases against the detenu are registered in various police
stations and that he is in the habit of committing offences. No doubt,
these averments are not made mention of in the grounds of detention.
But can it be said that these materials placed before the authority
might not have influenced the mind of the detaining authority in taking c
the decision of detaining the detenu? In our view, the above averments
which are extraneous touching the character of the detenu though not
referred to in the Grounds of detention, might have influenced the
mind of the detaining authority to some extent one way or other in
reaching the subjective satisfaction to take the decision of directing the D
detention of the detenu. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Jain, had these
extraneous materials not been placed before the detaining authority,
he might or might not have passed this order. Therefore, we have to
hold that the detention order is suffering from the vice of considera-
tion of extraneous materials vitiating the validity of the order. There
are several pronouncements of this Court, on this point, of which we E
will make mention of to the following decisions:

Ram Krishna Paul v. The Government of West Bengal & Ors.,
[1972] l SCC 570: Smt. Pushpa v. Union of India & Others, [1980]
Supp. SCC 391; Merugu Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
Ors., [ 1982j 3 SCC 301 and Mehboob Khan Nawab Khan Pathan v. F
Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and Another, [ 1989] 3 SCC 568.

Mr. Dalveer Bhandari relying on Section SA of the Act urged
that the order of detention should not be deemed to be invalid or
inoperative merely on the ground that some extraneous materials were
placed before the detaining authority since those alleged extraneous G
materials have no bearing on the validity of this impugned order which
can be sustained on the material set out in the Grounds of detention
itself. Placing reliance on decision of this Court in Prakash Chandra
Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Govt. of Kera/a and Others,
[ 1985] Supp. SCC 144 wherein it has been observed that the 'grounds'
under Article 22(5) of the Constitution do not mean mere factual H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

A inferences but mean factual inferences plus factual material submitted
that in the present case the factual material set out in the grounds of
detention alone led to the passing of the order with a view to prevent-
ing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the main-
tenance of public order. We are unable to see any force in the above
B submission. What Section 5A provides is that where there are two or
more grounds covering various activities of the detenu, each activity is
a separate ground by itself and if one of the grounds is vague, non-
existent, not relevant, not connected or not prox1mately connected
with such person or invalid for any other reason whatsoever, then that
will not vitiatethe order of detention. ·

c It is not the case that this impugned order has been made on the
two or more grounds covering various activities of the detenu, but on
the other hand the order has been passed on the sole ground relatable
to a single incident. The conclusion arrived at by us is only on the basis
that the aforesaid extraneous materials, placed before the detaining
D authority might have influenced the'mind of the detaining authority,
but not on the ground that one of the-grounds of the detention order
has become invalid or inoperative for the reasons lnentioned in Sec-
tion 5(A)(a).

The next submission made by Mr. Jain on behalf of the detenu is
E on the basis of Ground Nos. VII & VIII of.the Special Lieave Petition
in which the appellant has expressed his grievance that he had been
deprived of making an effective and purposeful representation as
envisaged under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India since no
particulars or details are given in documents I & II enclosed with the
grounds of detention in regard to the alleged 'many cases/offences'
F said to have been registered in various police stations against him and
in regard to the allegations that he was a hardened criminal and had a
gang often committing heinous crimes and that it had become the habit
of the detenu to commit offences. In support of this coniention refe-
-
rence was made to the decision in Mehboob Khan Nawab Khan
Pathan's case (ibid). No denial is made in the counter filed on behalf of
G the first respondent. This latter submission, in our opinion, cannot be
rejected as having no force.

In the result, we without going into the merits of the other con-
tentions allow this appeal, quash the detention order and direct the
H detenu to be set at liberty forthwith ..
V.N. KARWARIA v. STATE OF U.P. [PANDIAN, J.] 219

ORDER A

The Writ Petition is connected with the Criminal Appeal No. 219 of
1990 arising out of SLP (Cr!.) No. 2473/89. The detention order under
challenge in both the proceedings is the one passed by the District
Magistrate, Allahabad on 31.3.1988 under Section 3(3) of the National
Security Act 1980. As we have now set aside the order of detention in
B
the Criminal Appeal, no order is necessary in this Writ Petition. The
Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed and
Petition disposed of.
c