Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P No. 3419 of 2002

Attorney(S)

R.N Singh with A.J Pawar
R.S Patel
P.D Gupta, Deputy Advocate General

Judges

Bhawani Singh, C.J
S.L Jain, J.

Acts

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Ravi Tiwari and Dinesh Badsar challenged preventive detention orders passed by the District Magistrate, Khandwa (East Nimar) dated April 4, 2002, which were later approved by the State Government on April 11, 2002. An Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the National Security Act, 1980, considered the matter on "April 13-5-2002" and opined that there existed sufficient cause for detention. The State Government confirmed the detention order under Section 12 of the Act by order dated May 13, 2002.

Both petitioners are residents of Khandwa (East Nimar). Ravi Tiwari and his father are described as "Pujari" in 'Dadaji Parisar'. Dinesh Badsar is described as a businessman and manager of a co-operative fair price shop; his father is a medical practitioner. The petitioners assert they belong to well-reputed families and are peace-loving citizens. The record indicates that on March 29, 2002, Holi and Idd festivals took place in Khandwa and multiple FIRs were registered concerning incidents arising then, but the names of both petitioners do not appear in the FIRs enumerated in the opinion.

The petitioners contend the detention orders were made without jurisdiction, were routine and mechanically passed on the basis of information from the sponsoring authority (Superintendent of Police, Khandwa), and were the result of non-application of mind. They also allege procedural safeguards were not observed: material documents were not supplied, they were not permitted to make effective representations, and extraneous influences (including political considerations) affected the decision to detain them. The State maintained that the grounds communicated antecedents and roles of the petitioners, that effective representations were permitted, and that the orders were valid and approved by the Advisory Board and State Government.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the preventive detention orders made under the National Security Act, 1980, against the petitioners were validly passed in accordance with the statutory scheme and requirements of preventive detention law.
Whether the District Magistrate and State Government applied their minds and formed the necessary subjective satisfaction before approving and confirming the detention orders, or whether the orders were mechanical/routine.
Whether the petitioners were furnished with sufficient particulars and relevant material (including antecedents and investigation results) so as to enable them to make effective representations as required under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the procedural safeguards of preventive detention law.
Whether the absence of the petitioners' names from the FIRs and the lack of supporting material for the sponsoring authority's assertions render the detentions unsustainable.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

The detention orders were without jurisdiction and the result of non-application of mind by the District Magistrate; they were passed routinely based on information supplied by the sponsoring authority (Superintendent of Police).
Procedural safeguards were not observed: material documents were not supplied to the petitioners and they were not given the opportunity to make effective representations against the detention orders.
Extraneous matters influenced the District Magistrate, and the detentions were motivated by political considerations and persons of influence.
Neither petitioner is named in the FIRs relating to the incidents of March 29, 2002; their alleged involvement is not supported by the police reports provided.

Respondent State's Arguments

The grounds of detention indicate antecedents of the petitioners and the role they played in creating the circumstances set out in the FIRs and memorandum of offences.
The grounds of detention were communicated to the petitioners, permitting effective representation, and the orders have been approved by the State and the Advisory Board, making the detentions valid within the parameters of the National Security Act, 1980.
Consequently, the State contended that the detentions were for valid reasons and in accordance with law.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Kishori Mohan Bera v. State of West Bengal, (1972) 3 SCC 845	Preventive detention laws confer extraordinary powers and must be construed strictly; such powers should be exercised with extreme care.	The court invoked the principle that detention powers must be exercised cautiously and applied this standard when evaluating whether the District Magistrate and State applied their minds before detaining the petitioners.
Antaryami v. State of Orissa, 1992 Cr.LJ 1910	Similar principle that extraordinary powers of detention require stringent care in exercise and strict construction.	Used alongside Kishori Mohan Bera to reinforce that the executive must form a genuine subjective satisfaction and not record it lightly or mechanically.
V.C. Mohan v. Union of India and others, (2002) (3) SCC 451	Courts have a duty to scrutinize preventive detention orders; preventive detention is an invasion of personal liberty and courts must ensure compliance with requirements of justice and procedural safeguards.	The court relied on this articulation to emphasize its watchdog role in examining whether procedural and substantive requirements for preventive detention were met in the present case.
Fitrat Raza Khan v. State of U.P., (1982) 2 SCC 339	Where allegations do not give particulars of offences relied upon, detenues are deprived of the ability to make effective representations under Article 22(5).	The court cited this authority to support the proposition that lack of particulars in the grounds of detention can vitiate the detention; applied it when finding the petitioners were not provided adequate particulars.
Prem Lata Sharma v. District Magistrate, Mathura, (1998) 4 SCC 260	Reinforces the requirement that procedural fairness (including supply of particulars) is essential for effective representation under Article 22(5).	The court applied this line of authority to conclude that the petitioners' opportunity to make effective representation was compromised by the absence of necessary particulars and material.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began its analysis by stressing the extraordinary nature of powers under the National Security Act, 1980, and the need for strict construction and careful exercise of subjective satisfaction before detaining persons without trial. It relied on established authorities emphasizing the court's duty to scrutinize preventive detention orders.

The factual examination focused on the FIRs registered on March 29, 2002 (Crime Nos. 116, 117, 169, 170, 171, 172 and 173 of 2002), as set out in the opinion. The court observed that the names of the petitioners do not appear in any of those FIRs describing the principal incidents. The sponsoring authority's report referred to investigation results and alleged participation by the petitioners, but the opinion states that the sponsoring authority's assertions were not supported by material placed before the District Magistrate or supplied to the petitioners.

The court found deficiencies in the manner in which past conduct and antecedents were relied upon. Specifically, the record showed that references to earlier crimes concerning Dinesh Badsar were supported only by FIRs that did not name him but referred to unknown persons. The court noted that relevant details and results of investigation were neither supplied to the District Magistrate for forming subjective satisfaction nor furnished to the petitioners with the grounds of detention to enable meaningful response.

The court also highlighted internal inconsistencies and mechanical approvals: the State Government's approval on April 11, 2002, was characterized as mechanical and cyclo-styled; Form No. 1 entries were inconsistent (one entry referencing "anti-social and criminal activities", another alleging the petitioners had "hurt the religious feelings ... by throwing a dead pig-child into Masjid"). The court emphasized that those expressly named in the police reports were not detained, and the sponsoring authority's description of incidents differed from the police reports themselves.

Applying the legal principles cited (including the need to provide particulars so as to permit effective representation under Article 22(5)), the court concluded that in the absence of relevant material demonstrating the petitioners' individual or collective involvement, and given the failure to supply particulars and the apparent non-application of mind, the detention orders could not stand.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition is allowed and the detentions of the petitioners are quashed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioners forthwith.

Implications:

Direct consequence: The petitioners must be released immediately; the specific detention orders under challenge are set aside.
Reasoning consequence: The decision underscores that preventive detention orders under the National Security Act must be founded on materials that demonstrate participation or dangerousness, that subjective satisfaction must be properly formed by the executive, and that sufficient particulars must be supplied to enable effective representation under Article 22(5).
Broader precedent: The opinion applies established authorities on the limits of preventive detention; the court did not announce a new legal principle but reaffirmed and applied existing precedent to the facts before it.

This summary is based exclusively on the content of the provided opinion and does not include information beyond that text.

Show full summary ...

Ravi Tiwari And Others v. Union Of India And Others

1. Ravi Tiwari and Dinesh Badsar have challenged their detentions by District Magistrate, Khandwa (East Nimar), by orders dated April 4,2002, later approved by the State Government by order dated April 11, 2002.

2. The Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the National Security act, 1980, considered the matter on April 13-5-2002 and opined that there existed sufficient cause for detention of petitioners under the National Security Act, 1980. Thereafter, the detention order has been confirmed under Section 12 of the Act of 1980 by the State Government vide order dated May 13, 2002.

3. Both the petitioners are residents of Khandwa (East Nimar). Ravi Tiwari is "Pujari" in 'Dadaji Parisar', so is his father Shiv Narayan Tiwari. Dinesh Badsar is a businessman, Manager of Co-operative Fair Price Shop in Dadaji Ward, Khandwa. His father is a Medical Practitioner. Both the petitioners submit that they below to well reputed families and are peace loving citizens.

4. Ravi Tiwari has no criminal antecedents, though two petty criminal cases were initiated against Dinesh Badsar, which do not make him criminal by any stretch of imagination. Holi and Idd Festivals took place on March 29, 2002 in Khandwa (East Nimar). The police registered cases for different offences in some police stations of the town through different First Information Reports, the names of both the petitioners do not figure in any of these cases. The petitioners submit that the detention orders could not be passed against them, since they are not involved in any of the activities alleged by the respondents. Rather, those, who expressly figure in those reports lodged at the instance of individuals or the police officers, have not been detained. Therefore, the detention orders are without jurisdiction, liable to be quashed. Further, it is also result of non-application of mind by the District Magistrate. It has been passed routinely on the basis of information supplied by the sponsoring authority, Superintendent of Police, Khandwa.

5. Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that necessary safeguards as to the procedure and hearing have not been taken care of by the authority nor extended opportunity to make effective representation against the detention orders, since material documents have not been supplied and extraneous matters have influenced the District Magistrate in passing the orders of detention. Moreover, the petitioners have been detained for political considerations at the instance of persons yielding great influence.

6. Shri P.D. Gupta, Dy. A.G. for the State, submits that the grounds of detention do suggest not only the antecedents of the petitioners but also the role, they played in creating the circumstances mentioned in the memorandum of offences registered vide various first information reports in this case. The grounds of detention were communicated to the petitioners permitting effective representations against the detention orders, which have been approved by the State and also the Advisory Board. Therefore, the orders of detention are valid, within the parameters of law, the National Security Act, 1980. Consequently, the detentions of the petitioners are for valid reasons.

7. National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'Act of 1980') confers extra-ordinary powers on the executive to detain a person without recourse to the ordinary law of land and trial by Courts. Such a law has to be construed strictly. The power conferred by such a law has to be exercised with extreme care and scrupulously within the bounds laid down in such law. Kishori Mohan Bera v. State Of West Bengal., (1972) 3 SCC 845 and Antaryami v. State of Orissa, 1992 Cr.LJ 1910. Since very drastic powers of detention without trial are conferred on subordinate officers, the State Government is expected to apply its mind and make a careful choice regarding the period during which such power shall be exercised by the subordinate officers, which would solely depend on the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail. The subjective satisfaction cannot be lightly recorded by reproducing both the alternative clauses of the statute. The subjective satisfaction on the prevailing circumstances, or circumstances that are likely to prevail at a future date is the sine qua non for the exercise of power. In V.C. Mohan v. Union of India and others [(2002) (3) SCC 451], the Apex Court said :--

"Preventive detention admittedly is an "invasion of personal liberty" and it is a duty cast on to the Law Courts to satisfy itself in regard to the circumstances under which such a preventive detention has been ordered - in the event, however, the same does not conform to the requirements of the concept of justice as is available in the justice delivery system of the country, the Law Courts would not shirk of their responsibility to provide relief to the person concerned. The guardian angle of the Constitution stand poised with a responsibility to zealously act as a watchdog so that injustice does not occur : let us not be understood to mean however, that there ought to be any over zealous-ness since the same may lend assistance to a situation, which is otherwise not compatible with social good and benefit."

8. It may be true that the past conduct or antecedents, history of a person can be taken into account while making detention orders but a person should be apprised of circumstances/documents forming part of such a consideration so that he can make effective representation against the relevance of those circumstances/documents in his representation. However, where allegations attaching the character of detenues do not give particulars or details in respect of offences allegedly committed by him, then the detenues could be said to have been deprived of making an effective representation as envisaged under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the detention order liable to be vitiated. {See Fitrat Raza Khan v. State of U.P. [(1982) 2 SCC 339] and Prem Lata Sharma v. District Magistrate, Mathura [(1998) 4 SCC 260]}.

9. The first FIR is Crime No. 116/2002, dated 29-3-2002. It has been registered at the instance of Mohd. Ali (Imam). He found cut dead pig-child on the roof of Masjid thereby hurting religious feelings of the community. He sustains suspicion on Virendra, Tamma Tailor, Sonu, Harish, Sachin and Pappu son of Shankar Nai. Both the petitioners do not figure in this report. The second FIR is Crime No. 117/2002 of the same date lodged by J.M. Deewan, Inspector of Police Station, Moghat Road, Khandwa. He mentions Sanjay, Sunil and Gajanand in his report. Both the petitioners do not figure in this report. The third FIR is Crime No. 169/2002 of the same date lodged by Mohan Yadav against Akaram Khan, Anwar, Parvaz alias Guddu, Nadeem, Bhuru alias Dali, Goseej, Wajid, Yajid, Abdullah, Ashique, Sadiq, Mohd. Ali, Hakim, Saleem, Arif, Gaffar, Ashique son of Sardar, Amjad son of Saleem etc. The names of the petitioners do not figure in this report. The fourth FIR is Crime No. 170/2002 of the same date lodged by Vijaya Jain against the persons of other community. In this report also, the names of both the petitioners do not figure. The fifth report is Crime No. 171/2002 of the same date lodged by Madhubala Pagare, Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Chowki, Rameshwar, Khandwa, in which names of 45 persons of other community have been mentioned, but both the petitioners do not figure in this report. The sixth FIR is Crime No. 172/2002 of the same date lodged by Kallu Masalman against Pradeep Sonkar, Rinku Sonkar, Gabbar Sonkar, Jeetu Sonkar, Anil Sonkar, Sandeep Sonkar, Vimlesh Sonkar, Yogesh Sonkar etc. He claims to be eye-witness, but makes no mention about the participation by any of the petitioners. The seventh FIR is Crime No. 173/2002 registered by Chhote Khan on the same date. He named Balla Yadav, Munna Mandloi, Vijay Yadav, Nitin Yadav, Ragga Yadav and Sanjay Yadav in his report. But the names of the petitioners do not figure in this report.

10. From the aforesaid reports, it is crystal clear that participation by the petitioners is not recorded. Whether investigation reveals their names is mentioned in the report of the Sponsoring Authority with regard to Crime No. 116/2002. On what basis, particulars are not stated, since names of the petitioners do not find mention in Crime No. 116/2002 lodged by Mohd. Ali (Imam) with respect to the main incident resulting in other incidents. How the Sponsoring Authority makes mention of participation by the petitioners is not supported by material. Further, the past conduct of Dinesh Badsar has been mentioned with reference to Crime No. 271/91 and Crime No. 531/99, but simply FIR has been supplied, which does not make mention of Dinesh Badsar, but of unknown person. Consequently, in absence of relevant material demonstrating clearly vicious conduct of the petitioners individually, collectively or their inter se relations, the District Magistrate ought to have been on guard to deal with the matter for arriving at his subjective satisfaction. Perusal of the grounds of detention suggest that crimes registered against Dinesh Badsar have been mentioned in schedule, but details thereof were neither supplied nor sought for forming subjective opinion by the District Magistrate for passing the detention orders nor they have been furnished to the petitioners along with grounds of detention making it possible for them to respond effectively. The grounds of detention do not justify involvement of the petitioners in the incidents, therefore, it has been passed in a routine fashion having been sought by the Sponsoring Authority, The State Government approved the order on April 11, 2002 mechanically by filling the spaces in cyclo-styled order thereby demonstrating that the order has been passed without application of mind, which is further clear from the Form No. 1, Column No. 11 mentioning inappropriately that the detention order has been passed against the petitioners for indulging in anti-social and criminal activities. While in another Form No. 1, it is mentioned against the same column that the petitioner(s) hurted the religious feelings of Muslim community by throwing a dead pig-child into Masjid. Due to this act, a series of crimes and communal violence took place in the city and public order and safety was completely disturbed. There is no document/evidence to suggest this act of petitioners or their involvement in subversive activities. Those, who have been expressly named in the reports to the police, have not been detained. The incident described here is something different that what is described in Para 7 by the Sponsoring Authority. The result of investigation has neither been placed before the District Magistrate nor supplied to the petitioners.

11. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the detention orders are not based on proper application of mind, after perusal of relevant materials, therefore, they can not be sustained.

12. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the detentions of the petitioners are quashed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioners forthwith.

Ravi Tiwari And Others v. Union Of India And Others

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

Respondent State's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Ravi Tiwari And Others v. Union Of India And Others

Comments