Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This is a habeas corpus petition where the detenu has been detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, with a view to "preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State, the maintenance of public order". The petitioner was furnished with a copy of the grounds. The first three grounds read as under:

"Grounds of detention of Shri Dilip Raj-khowa, S/o Bishnu Rajkhowa, Village Teliagaon, P. S. Nowgong, Dist. Nowgong (Assam).
1. You as an active member of Jaliyata-badi Dal, Nowgong branch attended a number of meetings of the J, B. D. and emphasised the need to form branch committees of the District at different places of the District and actively mobilising the people to be united under the banner of the J.B.D. to launch agitation on the foreigners issue, Soon after beginning of the current agitation for which an order for your detention under P. D. Act was issued by the District Magistrate, Nowgong on 18-4-80 for your prejudicial activities, but you remained absconding to avoid detention.
2. On 9-9-80 you along with others submitted a memorandum to the Deputy Commissioner, Nowgong protesting against distribution of land to landless people and appealed to stop distribution of land.
3. Immediately after the failure of Delhi talk, you with firm determination actively mobilised the Jatiyatabadi Dal/Yuba Chatra Parishad to continue the agitation till all the foreigners are deported from the soil of Assam."

(Emphasis added)

2. Mr. R. C. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds are vague, irrelevant and nonexistent; the grounds Nos. 1, 2, 3 are vague and irrelevant, ground No. 1 is factually incorrect as well. The learned counsel further submits that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was vitiated for non-consideration of material facts and consideration of non-existent facts; none of the grounds touches the fringes of the first of the three concentric circles or "the smallest circle" namely, "the security of the State" for which as well, the petitioner is being detained. The State refutes the contentions.

3. The petitioner made representation wherein he took up the plea that he had never absconded 'to avoid detention' as alleged in ground No. 1. He has stated in his representation as well as in his writ application that he attended his office regularly during the period in question. He stated categorically that his office Attendance Register would show that he was regularly attending his office. He averred in para 8 of his petition as under:--

"That your petitioner begs to state that the ground No. 1 is factually not correct. The same is vague and irrelevant and is devoid of basic facts and material particulars ..... The petitioner begs to state further that he is an employee of the Assam Electricity Board, Nowgong and at the relevant time was working in the office regularly till his arrest on 2-1-81. The Office Attendance Register will show that the petitioner was regularly attending his office."

We have perused the return made by the Stale and do not find that the allegations of the petitioners were refuted. There is no statement that the petitioner did not attend his office till his arrest on 2-1-81 nor is there any assertion that the Office Attendance Register of the petitioner does not reflect his attendance during the period. The State produced before us the materials on which the District Magistrate had formed his subjective satisfaction, namely, the police report styled as 'dossier'. On perusal thereof we find that the dossier clearly shows that the first detention order had been revoked by the Government before making of the present detention order. Further we are astounded to note that the accusations referred in A in Ground No. 1, namely, that the petitioner being an active member of Jatiyabadi Dal, Nowgong branch had attended a number of meetings of the J. B. D., emphasised the need to form branch committees of the District at different places of the District and had actively mobilised the people to be united under the banner of the J. B. D. to launch agitation on the foreigners issue, are conspicuously absent. It follows therefore that the understructure of ground No. 1 was installed on incorrect or inaccurate statement. We recall Tyson Edward's quip "Accuracy is the twin brother of honesty; inaccuracy is a near kin to falsehood." Even though the above statement is not true for all occasions, we feel that the statement has some relevancy while considering the grounds of detention under the Preventive Detention Laws. Introduction of nonexistent material particular in a ground impressed in the detention order is a serious remiss in "preventive detention" says trial, that takes away the precious right called "freedom".