S GAYATHRI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, Gayathri, for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for the production of the body of her husband Sundaram alias Mylapore Sundaram, who is undergoing detention at the Central Prison, Madras, in consequence of an order of detention passed against him under the National Security Act by the first respondent

(2.) ON 30-4-1981, an order of detention was passed against the said Sundaram by the first respondent and he was taken into custody. The grounds of detention and the documents referred to in the said grounds, were furnished to the detenu on 3-3-1981 (3-5-1981 ?). The detenu submitted his representations, to the Advisory Board against the order of detention; but having failed to convince the Board, the detenu's wife has come forward with this petition

(3.) THE first argument was that the incidents referred to under grounds Nos. 1 and 2, had taken place long prior to the passing of the detention order and as such, those incidents could and have created a reasonable belief in the mind of the first respondent that an order of detention should be passed against the detenu in the interest of public order. In support of this argument, the petitioner's counsel cited Rabindrakumar v. State of W.B. We are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel. It is no doubt true that the incidents referred to in grounds 1 and 2 have taken place several months before the order of detention was passed. But merely on that score, it is not open to the detenu to say that the subjective satisfaction formed by the first respondent is an illusory one. As pointed out in Golam Hossain v. Police Commr., Calcutta, and Gora v. State of W.B., the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test to be blindly applied by merely counting the number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention ..... THE prejudicial act of the detenu may in given case be of such a character as to suggest that it is a part of an organised operation of a complex of agencies collaborating to clandestinely and secretely carry on such activities and in such a case, the detaining authority may reasonably feel satisfied that the prejudicial act of the detenu which has come to light, cannot be solitary or isolated act, but must be part of a course of conduct of such or similar activities clandestinely or secretely carried on by the detenu and it is, therefore, necessary to detain him with a view to prevent him from indulging in such activities in the future. If the previous incidents were sufficient to make and detaining authority believe justifiably and bona fide that the detenu was a confirmed troublemaker and the incidents relating to him were not isolated or sporadic acts, but were reflective of dangerous behaviour of a sustained nature, it is open to the detaining authority to take note of these incidents in spite of the fact that they had not occurred immediately before the passing of the order of detention