- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Keshab Roy v. State Of West Bengal .
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, Keshab Roy, was detained on 16 July 1971 by the District Magistrate, Birbhum, under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. The detention order, together with the grounds, was served on him on 18 July 1971. The State Government approved the order on 26 July 1971, informed the Central Government the same day, and rejected the petitioner’s representation on 16 August 1971. The matter was placed before the Advisory Board, which, on 16 September 1971, found sufficient cause for detention; the State Government confirmed the detention on 16 October 1971.
Invoking Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus from jail before the Supreme Court challenging the legality of his preventive detention.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the two incidents cited in the grounds of detention constituted acts “prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order” within the meaning of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act.
- Whether the time-gap of about two and a half months between the last incident and the detention order destroyed the requisite “proximity” for valid preventive detention.
- Whether the detention order was vitiated by mala fides or bias on the part of the detaining authority.
- Whether the use of the word “or” in the phrase “security of the State or the maintenance of public order” in the detention order indicated non-application of mind, rendering the order invalid.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments (presented by amicus curiae)
- The two incidents—setting fire to postal records (4 April 1971) and to two classrooms of a school (1 May 1971)—did not amount to acts prejudicial to State security or public order.
- The detention order lacked temporal proximity to the incidents, evidencing stale grounds.
- The order was passed with mala fide intent and bias against the petitioner.
- The alternative wording “security of the State or the maintenance of public order” displayed casualness and absence of due application of mind.
Respondent State’s Position
An affidavit by the Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department, was filed opposing the petition. The opinion, however, does not detail specific legal arguments advanced on behalf of the State.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ananta Mukhi alias Ananta Hari v. State of West Bengal, (1972) 1 SCC 580 (W.P. No. 322 of 1971) | The mere use of the disjunctive “or” when reciting the twin objects of detention (“security of the State or maintenance of public order”) does not, by itself, vitiate a detention order. | The majority adopted this principle to reject the petitioner’s contention that the wording of the impugned order showed non-application of mind. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Justice H.R. Khanna, speaking for the majority, addressed each contention:
- Nature of the incidents: Both incidents involved mischief by fire against Government property (a Sub-Post Office) and an educational institution. Under Section 3(2)(b) of the Act, such mischief, where it disturbs or is likely to disturb public order, falls squarely within the statutory grounds for detention. The accompanying panic and terror in the locality reinforced this view.
- Proximity of time: The detention order followed approximately two and a half months after the second incident, a period the Court held sufficiently proximate, particularly given the recurring nature of the alleged conduct.
- Mala fides or bias: The record contained no cogent material to substantiate allegations of bias; the Court therefore declined to infer mala fides.
- Use of the word “or”: Relying on Ananta Mukhi, the Court held that alternative phrasing referencing either State security or public order does not, per se, demonstrate casualness or vagueness; accordingly, the ground was rejected.
Justice J.M. Shelat, dissenting, would have followed Ananta Mukhi to invalidate the order and direct the petitioner’s release. The majority, however, upheld the detention.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The writ petition is dismissed; the order of detention is upheld.
Implications: The petitioner remains in preventive detention. The Court reaffirmed that (1) acts of arson against Government or educational property can justify detention under the Act, (2) a two-month interval does not necessarily break temporal proximity, and (3) the disjunctive formulation “security of the State or maintenance of public order” is not inherently infirm. No new legal precedent was created, but existing principles under the West Bengal statute were applied and reinforced.
J.M Shelat, J.— The order of detention impugned in this petition is in identical terms as the one in Writ Petition No. 322 of 1971, Ananta Mukhi alias Ananta Hari v. State of West Bengal WP No. 322 of 1971, (1972) 1 SCC 580. For the reasons given in the judgment in that petition the impugned order must be held to be bad. Consequently, the Respondent State is directed to release the petitioner and set him at liberty forthwith.
H.R Khanna, J.— This is a petition through jail under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by Keshab Roy who has been ordered to be detained under Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (President's Act 19 of 1970), hereinafter referred to as the Act.
3. The order of detention which was made against the petitioner reads as under:
“No. 2925-C
ORDER
Dated, Suri, the 16th July, 1971
Whereas I am satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Keshab Roy, son of Shri Kalipada Roy of Dubrajpur (Lalbazar), P.S Dubrajpur, District Birbhum, that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, I therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1), read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (President's Act 19 of 1970), make this order directing that the said Shri Keshab Roy be detained.
Given under my hand and seal of office.
Sd/-
M. Gupta
16/7/71
District Magistrate, Birbhum.”
4. The same day the order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, that is, July 16, 1971 he sent a report about the making of the order to the State Government. The order of detention and the grounds of detention were served upon the petitioner on July 18, 1971. The State Government approved the order of detention on July 26, 1971 and on the same day reported the matter to the Central Government. Representation, dated July 28, 1971, of the petitioner was received by the State Government and was rejected on August 16, 1971. The case of the petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board on August 16, 1971. The Advisory Board made a report on September 16, 1971 to the effect that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The order of detention was confirmed on October 16, 1971.
5. The petition has been resisted by the respondent and the affidavit of Shri Chandi Charan Bose, Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal has been filed in opposition to the petition.
6. Mr Francis, who has argued the case amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner, has invited our attention to the grounds of detention which were served upon the petitioner and read as under:
“(1) On April 4, 1971, at about 23.30 hours, you along with others forcibly entered by breaking door into the office room of Niramoy (Giridanga) Sub-Post Office, P.S Dubrajpur, and set fire to postal records and papers besides other things worth Rs 200.00 causing extensive damage. This created panic and terror in the locality.
(2) On May 1, 1971, at about 00.15 hours, you along with others set fire to two class rooms of Balijuri Junior High School, P.S Dubrajpur causing damage to furniture and class room worth Rs 1000.00 (one thousand). This created serious panic and terror in the locality.”
It has been argued by Mr Francis that the two incidents mentioned above did not show that the petitioner had acted in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. This contention, in our opinion, is not well-founded. The incident of April 4, 1971 referred to in the grounds of detention relates to setting fire to postal records and papers, while the incident of May 1, 1971 pertains to setting fire to two class rooms of a school. It has also been mentioned that the above two incidents created panic and terror in the locality. The aforesaid allegations would bring the case of the petitioner within the purview of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. According to that clause, the expression “acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order” would, inter alia, include the commission of the offence of mischief by fire on any property of the Government or educational institution where the commission of such mischief disturbs or is likely to disturb public order.
7. It has next been argued by Mr Francis that there was no proximity of time between the incidents referred to in the grounds of detention and the order of detention. This contention too, in our opinion, is not well-founded, because the order of detention was made within about two and a half months of the second incident. The second incident showed a propensity on the part of the petitioner to set fire to Government property or educational institutions. It cannot be said that the order of detention was made after such a length of time of the incidents that the connection between the incidents and the order was remote and not proximate.
8. The impugned order has also been assailed as mala fide on the ground of bias of the authorities against the petitioner. There is, however, no cogent material on the record to indicate such a bias, and we find ourselves unable to accede to the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner in this respect.
9. Lastly, it has been argued that the order of detention made against the petitioner by the District Magistrate shows an element of casualness and absence of due application of mind, as according to the order the petitioner was detained “with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order”. It is urged that the use of the word “or” in the order shows that the detaining authority was not definite regarding the ground of detention. Similar argument was advanced before us in the case of Ananta Mukhi alias Ananta Hari v. State of West Bengal (Writ Petition No. 322 of 1971, decided today) and was rejected. It has been held by us that the use of the word “or” in the detention order would not introduce an infirmity as might justify the quashing of that order.
10. The petition consequently fails and is dismissed.
Order.— In view of the opinion of the majority, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Alert