MAHENDRA KALITA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DARRANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE propose to dispose of these three writ applications by a common order. All the petitioners have been arrested and detained under ` 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, for short 'the Act'. The first port urged is that the copies of the documents and materials to which references had been made in the grounds of detention of the petitioners were not supplied to the detenus, such document and materials were relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds and these were taken into consideration by the detaining authority while making the order of detention. Mr. P.G. Barua, the learned counsel for the petitioners urged some more points, however they require no consideration as the petitions must succeed on the first point itself.

(2.) IT has been held by the Supreme Court in a line of pronouncements that the documents and materials relied upon in the grounds which had been taken into consideration by the detaining authority while making the order of detention must be supplied to the detenu "pari passu" the grounds of detention as they form 'an integral part of the grounds'. We have referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Civil Rule No. 47 (HC) of 1981 Krishna Barua v. D.M. Kamrup, 48 (HC) of 1981, Bhairab Prasad Das v. D.M. Kamrup, 49 (HC) of 1981, Kamal Nayak v. D.M. Kamrup, 59 (HC) of 1981, Mahiram Saikia v. D.M. Nowgong, 60 (HC) of 1981, Tilok Ch. Mazumdar v. D.M., Nowgong disposed of on 19.3.1981. We held as follows : - "Copies of the documents and material to which reference is made in the grounds must be supplied to the detenu. The documents and material relied upon in "the grounds" which had had to be "taken into consideration by the detaining authority in making the order of detention must be supplied "to the detenu" "pari passu" the grounds of detention as they formed an integral part of the grounds" vide Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union of India decided on 22.2.1980 per S.M. Fazal Ali, P.S. Kailasam and A.D. Koshal, JJ., AIR 1980 SC 765 (para 8); Hansmikh v. State of Gujarat per R.S. Sarkaria, and R.S. Pathak, JJ. decided on 4.8.1980, AIR 1981 SC 28 : (1980 Cri LJ 1286) (paras 17, 18) Cor. P.N. Bhagawati A.P. Sen, JJ. Icchu Devi v. Union of India, per P.N. Bhagwati and E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ. decided on 9.9.1980, AIR 1980 SC 1983 (paras 6 and 7); Prittam Nath Hoon v. Union of India, per V.R. Krishna Iyer and A.D. Koshal, JJ. decided on 11.9.1960, AIR 1981 SC 92 : 1980 Cri LJ 1340 (para 9); Mangalbhai Motiram Patel v. State of Maharashtra, Corr. P.N. Bhagwati, A.P. Sen and E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ. decided on 26.9.1980, AIR 1981 SC 510; Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India per R.S. Sarkaria and O.C. Reddy, JJ. decided on 24.10.1980, AIR 1981 SC 431 : 1980 Cri LJ 1487 (paras 7 and 8); S. Gurdip Singh v. Union of India per Corr. S.M. Fazal Ali and A.D. Koshal, JJ. decided on 13.11.1980 : AIR 1981 SC 362 : 1981 Cri LJ 2; (paras 2 and 3) Lallubhai Jogibhai v. Union of India per R.S. Sarkaria and O.C. Reddy, JJ. decided on 15.12.1980 : 1981 Cri LJ 288 (para 18) and Kamala Kanyallal Khushlani v. State of Maharashtra per Corr. Fazal Ali and A. Varadarajan, JJ. decided on 6.1.1981 : (1981) 1 SCC 748 : (1981) Cri LJ 353) (SC) (Paras 3 -6)."

(3.) MR . P. Prosad, the learned Public Prosecutor had submitted that the documents were not supplied as they were not very material. The question is whether the detaining authority had to rely on the documents to bear up the grounds of detention. If the documents were so relied it must be held that they were material. We have perused the grounds of detention and find that documents were relied on by the detaining authority to bear up the order of detention in the grounds of detention. As such, the detaining authority was bound to supply the documents. In all these cases, the detenus asked for the documents by separate applications but the detaining authority did not furnish them with the copies thereof.