PUJARLA VENKAIAH1 Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NALGONDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PUJARLA Sambaiah, who is a student of law, Law College, Osmania University, was taken into custody on 5.3.1981 at Hyderabad under an order of detention dated 1.3.1981 passed by the District Magistrate, Nalgonda, who is the first respondent herein, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act. The detenu was served with the grounds of detention on 6.3.1981. The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu, filed this petition for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus quashing the orders of detention and set Sambaiah at liberty forthwith. The grounds mentioned in the order of detention are four in number :

(2.) SRI K.G. Kannabhiran, appearing for the detenu assails all these grounds as vague, irrelevant and are not in accordance with the constitutional mandate envisaged in Article 22(5).

(3.) IT is now well settled that the grounds of detention must be precise but not vague, pertinent, but not irrelevant, proximate but not stale. The object in requiring the detaining authority to furnish the detenu precise, definite and relevant grounds is to enable the detenu to make an effective representation. If the grounds are vague, indefinite or irrelevant, the detenu cannot have an opportunity to make an effective representation and the grounds cannot, therefore, be said to be in accordance with the constitutional mandate as envisaged in Article 22(5). As early as in 1951, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in State of Bombay v. Atmaram, AIR 1951 SC 157 : (52 Cri LJ 373) that the satisfaction of the Government must be based on some grounds. If the grounds furnished to the detenu are vague or indefinite, the grounds cannot be said to be in accordance with Article 22(5).