NAGEN MURMU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution the petitioner Shri Nagen Murmu challenges the order of his detention dated December 24, 1971 made by the District Magistrate, Midnapore under S. 3, sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2), of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971 (hereinafter called the Act). The detenu was arrested pursuant to the order of detention on December 29, 1971 on which date the grounds of detention were also served on him. This fact was reported to the State Government on December 30, 1971 and the detention order was approved by the State Government on January 4, 1972. The detenu's representation was received by the State Government on January 10, 1972 and was considered by it on February 19, 1972. The grounds on which the detention order was passed are :

(2.) Coming to the first ground the incident which is the subject matter thereof is said to have taken place on the midnight of October 13/14, 1969. The impugned order was made on December 24, 1971, more than two years thereafter. This, in our opinion, is far too remote for the purpose of raising any rational and reasonable inference of any apprehension of a repetition of such an act so as to justify the petitioner's detention. It may be pointed out that as held by this Court in Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab and Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1952 SCR 756 = (AIR 1952 SC 350) the past conduct or antecedent history of a person can appropriately be taken into account in making a detention order. It is indeed largely from prior events showing tendencies or inclinations of a man that an inference can be drawn whether he is likely in the future to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. But in order to justify such an inference it is necessary to bear in mind that such past conduct or antecedent history should ordinarily be proximate in point of time and should have a rational connection with the conclusion that the detention of the person is necessary. No doubt, it is both inexpedient and undesirable to lay down any inflexible test as to how far distant the past conduct or the antecedent history should be for reasonably and rationally justifying the conclusion that the person concerned if not detained may indulge in prejudicial activities. In Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, (1964) 4 SCR 921 = (AIR 1964 SC 334) after laying down what has just been said the Court observed that the detention of a person without a trial is a very serious encroachment on his personal freedom and so at every stage all questions in relation to the said detention must be carefully and solemnly considered.

(3.) In the case in hand, there is nothing on the record from which it can be gathered that, though the solitary incident contained in the first ground occurred as far back as October, 1969, there are cogent grounds from which it can be rationally inferred in December, 1971 that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in future in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it is necessary to make the impugned oirder of detention. In the return, in addition to the reference to the two grounds on which the order of detention is based, it is stated in para 8 that the petitioner is an active member of the CPI-ML group and he was a close associate of hard-core Naxalite leaders, namely, Gangadhar Murmu and Baidyanath Murmu and others. This, in our opinion, does not in any way bring the solitary incident contained in ground No. 1 close to the time of the impugned order so as to justify the detention order.