RADHESHYAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writof habeas corpus challenging the validity of the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Indore on 25-2-1987 under subsection (2) of S. 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), directing that the petitioner be detained and kept in District Jail, Indore.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows : On 4-1-87, a report was lodged at the police station, Simrol, near Indore, by one Prahladdas that a Jain 'sadhwi' (nun) Induprabha, aged about 21 years, was abducted. While the investigation was in progress, Induprabha appeared at the police station and informed the police that she had not been abducted but that she had accompanied the petitioner of her own free will. Statement of Induprabha was recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.Code, in which she affirmed that she was not abducted and that she wanted to reside with the petitioner. The police, therefore, did not pursue the matter and allowed her to reside with the petitioner. Aggrieved by this action of the police, a petition registered as Miscellaneous Petition No. 40 of 1987 reported in AIR 1987 Madh Pra 132 (Dr. Manhohar Dalai s/o Bapulal v. State of M. P.) was filed in this Court on 7-1-1987 by Dr. Manohar Dalal for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus alleging that Induprabha was illegally detained. It was alleged in that petition that Induprabha was residing with Radheshyam, the present petitioner, against her will and that the State Government had failed to take any action against the offender. In the return filed by the State in that petition, the allegations made against the State Government were denied. The stand taken by the respondent-State in that behalf is set out in para. 5 of the judgment (Annexure 'B') delivered by a Division Bench of this Court. The relevant portion of that paragraph is as follows :

(3.) It is well settled by a number of decisions of the Supreme Court that the law of preventive detention has to be strictly construed and care has to be taken that the liberty of a person is not jeopardised unless the case falls squarely within the four corners of the relevant law. The object of making an order of detention is to prevent the commission in future of activities injurious to the community because preventive detention is to protect the society by preventing the wrong being done. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1986 SC 2177 that having regard to the purpose of the Act, the detaining authority must take into consideration rational, proximate reasonable past and present and that should be the basis for the horoscope for the future so as to determine whether the person proposed to be detained comes within the mischief of the Act. It is also well settled that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority constitutes the foundation for the exercise of the power of detention and though the Court cannot be invited to consider the sufficiency of the grounds, on which the satisfaction of the detaining authority is based, this does not mean that unfettered discretion, immune from judicial review vests in the detaining authority. As observed by the Supreme Court in Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 550 , the Court in the case of preventive detention has power to examine whether power conferred by the Act is exercised for the purpose contemplated by the Act and whether on the grounds furnished to the detenu, any reasonable authority could possibly come to the conclusion to which the detaining authority did.