HARGOBINDA DAS Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GOALPARA, ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Habeas Corpus application under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Goalpara, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. The purpose of detention was for preventing the petitioner "from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of service essential to the community".

(2.) THE substance of what has been described as the "grounds of detention", which he characterizes as the basis of the "subjective satisfaction" of the detaining authority, may be summed up thus : That on 30 -11 -82 the detenu along with others attended "a close door" meeting of AASU/AAGSP of Bijni Unit, discussed, about observance of 24 hours Assam Bundh and decided to observe a Bundh at Bijni on 2 -12 -82. In the meeting it was decided that shops and business establishments, etc. should be closed and the vehicles should be put off the road. The said meeting, it is stated, also decided to circulate leaflets and post pickets etc. to make the bundh successful. The second ground, or, the basis of the satisfaction was that the detenu along with others (named persons) circulated "a leaflet" in Assamese on 1 -12 -82 and requested the people to observe 'Assam Bundh' on 2 -12 -82 in the said manner, thereby, perhaps meaning by circulating the leaflet.

(3.) THE District Magistrate is undoubtedly competent to detain a person under Section 3(2) of "the Act". However, it must be based on "the subjective satisfaction". The term "satisfaction" has a reference to the mental element of the detaining authority, namely, his desires or feelings. It is undoubtedly true that the term "satisfaction" may include 'pleasure', but the context in which the term has been used in "the Act" indicates that there must be a state of mind of the detaining authority which was satisfied or contented, occasioned by some facts, event or state of things. Therefore, it is not an absolute pleasure on the basis of which a person can be detained. Satisfaction cannot be formed on vacuity; there must exist some "facts, events or some state of things" to arrive at the subjective satisfaction, enabling the detaining authority to make a valid order of detention under "the Act". We find, therefore, that the grounds 'are required to be furnished to the detenu which must contain the basic facts and materials. These basic facts and materials are nothing but events, state of things or facts, the basis on which the subjective satisfaction was reached by the detaining authority before making the order of detention. This is why the Supreme Court has ruled that the documents and materials relied by the detaining authority while making the order of detention must be furnished to the detenu "pari passu" the grounds of detention. All these materials form an integral part of the grounds or events or state of things which helped the detaining authority to reach the satisfaction about the necessity of detention. In our opinion this is why it has been ruled by the Supreme Court that the documents and materials relied must be of "a rational probative value and must not be extraneous to the purpose of the detention". The facts, events or state of things must be of the nature and character that they may lead a rational human being to reach 'the satisfaction'.