PRITPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Pritpal Singh was arrested on 8-2-1988 in case F.I.R. No. 34 dated 8-2-1988 under Section 216-A of the Indian Penal Code, etc. and while he was under detention in Central Jail, Amritsar the detention order Annexure P/I dated 30-3-1988 i.e. after 1-3/4 months of his arrest, was passed by District Magistrate, Amritsar, who is respondent No. 2 herein, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detention order is based on the solitary incident with regard which the above referred to case was registered. Through present writ petition the said detention order has been assailed by the petitioner.

(2.) IT has been presumed in the detention order that the petitioner is likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and security of State and it has been mentioned that with a view to prevent him from acting in such prejudicial manner that detention order was made. In reply to the writ petition as well, it has been said that the petitioner was likely to indulge in prejudicial activities on account of his propensity towards such activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. I am afraid that a conclusion in favour of such propensity may not be justifiably possible on the basis of solitary instance. It is obvious from the grounds of detention (translation Annexure P/2) that only case FIR No. 34 of 1988 was made basis of the detention order. The activities of the petitioner have been described therein through two paras only, first of which gives the details of case FIR No. 34 of 1988 and the second relates to interrogation of the petitioner by ASI Joginder Singh during investigation of the said case. Not only that cannot be treated to be any separate circumstance, it being statement of an accused before a police officer during investigation, is neither admissible and danger of reliance thereupon for the sake of detention under National Security Act does not need to be emphasised. Thus facts and circumstances of the case do not provide basis for justifiable conclusion that petitioner Pritpal Singh had propensity towards prejudicial activities so as to call for detention under National Security Act.

(3.) IN any case, the situation in which the petitioner was placed, it was not possible for him to indulge into such activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of the public order. Admittedly, he was in custody at the time of the making of the detention order. When the petitioner was already in jail he could not have possibly indulged in any such activity. He could act in such, manner only after his release and that is why it is suggested in the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 that District Magistrate, Amritsar, was satisfied that in the event of petitioner's release from custody on bail or otherwise he was again likely to indulge in prejudicial activities. It is, however, nowhere suggested in the detention order that petitioner was likely to be released in the immediate future or he had taken any specified steps for his release. Absence of such mention in the detention order rather indicates lack of application of mind by the authority passing the detention order. Even if it may be said that the authority is not required to give detailed reasons, it goes without saying that it must appear from the order that the same was passed after application of mind taking all factors into consideration. It is not possible to supplement by pleading fresh reasons in the reply. It is also said in para No. 4 of the reply of respondent No. 1 that the detaining authority took into account the rational, proximate, past and present conduct and antecedent history of the petitioner as also his tendency and inclination. towards his future conduct while reaching at subjective satisfaction. No such mention is made in the detention order Annexure P-1 or grounds for detention (translation annexure P-2). These pleas therefore have to be rejected as after thought. Even otherwise, when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds its validity must be judged by the reason mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of challenge could be validated by an additional ground later brought out. Thus the very basis of the detention stands knocked out because there was no possibility for the petitioner to act in prejudicial manner.