R SILUMBAYAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE orders of detention, subject matter of challenge in these writ petitions, relate to what happened on 16.11.1989 when the detenus arrived from Singapore by Malaysian Airlines Flight MH 036036 at the Madras Airport. According to the Authorities, they were found to be in possession of contraband gold. The Orders of detention have come to be made under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 52 of 1974. We do not propose to traverse upon the entire gamut of facts since we are inclined to sustain a ground of attack put forth in common in all these writ petitions on behalf of the detenus, coveting their release. For each of the detenus what happened, which is the foundation of the Orders of detention, is a solitary act. It is contend on behalf of the detenus that nothing has been substantiated to show that the alleged conduct on the part of the detenus formed a reasonable prognosis of future behaviour of the detenus. What happen on the day in question are practically the basis for the orders of detention. The normal law is that when an isolated offence or isolated offences is or are committed, the offender is to be prosecuted. If there should be a law of preventive detention empowering the authority to detain a particular offender in order to disable him to repeat his offences, it can be so done, but it will be obligatory on the part of the Detaining Authority to formally comply with the provision of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. But, there must be an indication that the past act of the person, though a solitary one, on the facts and circumstances of the case, shows a propensity on his part to repeat the same in future. In the present cases, the facts disclosed do not make out this feature at all. An order of preventive detention is founded on a reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of the detenus based on his past conduct, judged in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Such past conduct may consist of one single act or of a series of acts. But, it must be of such a nature that an inference can reasonably be drawn from it that the person concerned would be likely to repeat such acts in the future. The detenus in the present cases apparently are housewives and they seem to be gullible, having fallen a prey to the suggestions by a lady be name Pitchai Sayabu Mahabubi. Our perusal of the grounds of detention do not suggest to us, much less bring conviction to our mind that detenus are prone to or could be stated to have propensity to repeat the act in future unless they are visited with orders of detention under the preventive Detention Law. This feature is common to all the cases, and this obliges us to order the release of the detenus.

(2.) WE must place on record that number of other grounds were urged on behalf of the detenus; but since we have sustained the above ground of attack, which is sufficient to frown upon the orders of detention, we have not gone into the other grounds, put forth on behalf of the detenus. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed and we direct that the detenus in these Writ Petitions shall be set forth at liberty forthwith unless their detentions are required in connection with any other case. No costs.