SHIV PRASAD BHATNAGARversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

                                                                              81

                     SHIV PRASAD BHATNAGAR                                            A
                                    v.
             STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

                              March 5, 1981
                                                                                      B
             ( 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ]

      National Security Act-Section 12 ( 1)-Scope of-Staleness and irrelevance
of grounds of detention-If would vitiate the order of detention.

      The petitioner was detained under section 12 (I) of the National Security
Act on the grounds that he, alongwith his friends, in the second week of
November, 1980 indulged in filthy abuse of Muslims, threatened their lives and
                                                                                      c
performed "marpeet" and that he and his associates terrorised the common man
in the area by their various criminal acts which caused disturbance to the public
peace and public safety.

      In support of the petition it was contended' on behalf of the petitioner that
the reference to associates without naming even one rendered the ground vague         D
and, therefore, vitiated the order of detention and (2) that the incidents enume-
rated in the second ground related to the years 1974, 1975, 1977 and 1978 which
could not be said to be proximate enough to sustain the order of detention.

     Allowing the petition,

     HELD : The detenu is entitled to be released.
                                                                                      E
      It is now well settled that grounds of detention must be pertinent and not
irrelevant, proximate and not stale, precise and not vague. Irrelevance, staleness
and vagueness are vices any single one of which is sufficient to vitiate the order
of detention. [83 DJ

      In the instant case the incidents enumerated to substantiate the second
ground show that apart from the vice of staleness from which they suffer, they        F
were related to "law and order" and not to the maintenance of public order.
They are stale because of the passage of time since the happening of some of the
incidents; they are irrelevant because they related to law and order and not to
maintenance of public order. [83 El

     In Re: Sushanta Goswami and Ors., [1969] 3 S.C:R. 138 followed.
                                                                                      G
       ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 397 of 1981.
                  (Under Article 32 of the Constitution)
      Mrs. Shyamala Pappu, M. S. Mann, S Shukhar, Miss Raj
Shree and Mrs. Indra Sawhney for the Petitioner.                                      H
       S. K. Gambhir and Vijay Hansario for the Respondent.
    82                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (1981] 3 S.C.R,

A         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           CHINNAPPA REDDY J. Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar is under pre-
    ventive detention pursuant to an order made by the District
    Magistrate, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh. The order and the grounds
    of detention were served on him on November 28, 1980. The
B   District Magistrate made a report of the order to the State Govern-
    ment and the latter approved the detention order on December 2,
    1980. The approval was communicated to the detenu on
    December 5, 1980. A representation was submitted by the detenu
    on December 13, J 980. The Advisory Board constituted by the
    State Government met on January 3, 198 J, considered the material
c   placed before it by the detaining authority as well as the represen-
    tation and the written arguments submitted by the detenu. The
    detenu was also given a personal hearing. The Advisory Board sub-
    mitted its report to the State Government on January 4, 1981. 4'
    Thereafter the State Government confirmed the order of detention
    on February 3, 1981 under Sec. 12 (1) of the National Security Act.
D   The period of detention was stipulated as one year from the date of
    the order of detention. The order confirming the detention was
    communicated to the detenu on February 12, 1981 and he was also
    informed that the Advisory Board had opined that there was suffi-
    cient cause for his detention.

E          Smt. Shyamla Pappu, learned counsel for the detenu made a
    number of submissions. In the view that we are taking of one of
    the primary submissions, we do not think it necessary to consider
    the rest of the submissions. The primary submission that we have
    in mind is that the grounds of detention suffer from the vice of
    either vagueness or staleness. The first ground mentions that the
F   detenu alongwith his friends, in the second week of November,
     1980, indulged in filthy abuse of Muslims, threatened their lives and   '
                                                                             J
    performed "mar pit". Details of incidents were given to substan-
    tiate the ground. As many as six incidents were mentioned and in
    everyone of them it was said that the detenu alongwith his associates
    had indulged in this or that violent action. No mention was made
G   of the name of even a single associate. The argument was that the
    reference to 'associates' without naming even one rendered the
    ground vague and, therefore, vitiated it. Similarly, it was said the
    second ground also referred to the detenu and his accociates without
    naming even a single associate and for that reason the second
H   ground also was vague. The further submission was that the inci-
    dents enumerated in second ground were of the years 1974, 1975,
    1977 and 1978 and could by no means be said to be proximate
        S.P. BHATNAGAR v. MADHYA PRADESH (Chinnappa Reddy, J.)          83

     enough to sustain an order of preventive detention. The second            A
     ground was to the effect that the detenu and his associates had
r'   terrorized the common man in the Vidisha area by their various cri-
     minal acts which caused disturbance to public peace and public safety.
     Several incidents were narrated to substantiate· this ground. The first
     incident was of the year 1974, the second incident was of the year
      1975, the next three incidents were of the year 1977 and the rest of     B
     the incidents barring the last one were of the year 1978. A perusal of
     the incidents enumerated to substantiate the second ground show
      that apart from the vice of staleness from which they appear to
     suffer, the incidents are related to "law and order" and not to the
      maintenance of public order. The incidents appear to bear a strik-
      ing resemblance to the grounds of detention which were considered        c
      Jn Re: Sushanta Goswami & Ors., (') particularly in the cases of
      Debendra Nath Das, Abdul Wallah, Anil Das, Dilip Kumar
      Chakraborty and Ashoka Kumar Mukhe1jee. It is now well settled
      that grounds of detention must be pertinent and not irrelevent,
      proximate and not stale, precise and not vague. Irrelevance, stale-
      ness and vagueness are vices any single one of which is sufficient to    D
      vitiate a ground of detention. And, a single vicious ground is
      sufficient to vitiate an order of detention. In the present case we
      are satisfied that the second ground of detention suffers both from
      the vice of staleness, because of the passage of time since the happe-
       ning of some of the incidents and the vice of irrelevance because
       they relate to 'law and order' and not to 'the maintenance of public    E
       order'. The detenu is entitled to be released. He is directed to be
       released forthwith. The petition is allowed.

     P.B.R.                                                Petition allowed.


\




          (!)   [:%9] 3 S.C.R. 138.