Supreme Court of India
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.versusKETHIYAN PERUMAL
- Citation
- 2004 INSC 592
- Decided
- 11 October 2004
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The High Court's order was set aside; the detention order is valid despite alleged extraneous grounds, and passage of time does not bar the detainee from serving the remaining period.
Summary
The State of Tamil Nadu detained Kethiyan Perumal under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, relying on a Forest Officer's report. The detainee's wife filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing that the report did not state that the detainee's activities were highly dangerous to public order and that the detaining authority had considered extraneous matters, rendering the detention invalid. The High Court set aside the detention order, distinguishing it from the earlier Mrs. U. Vijayalakshmi case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred: the same Forest Officer's report clearly indicated activities prejudicial to public order, extraneous grounds do not affect validity under Section 5A/SA, and passage of time is not a bar to serving the remaining detention period. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and allowed the State's appeals, directing the State to decide on the remaining period of detention.
Issues considered
- The Forest Officer's report must specifically mention that the detainee's activities are highly dangerous to public order for a valid detention under Section 3(1).
- Whether extraneous or irrelevant grounds invalidate a detention order under Section 5A/SA of the Act.
- Whether the passage of time precludes the detainee from serving the remaining period of detention.
- The correctness of distinguishing the present case from Mrs. U. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Tamil Nadu.
Subjects
preventive detentionextraneous groundsSection 5ASection SApublic orderforest officer reportpassage of timedetention order validity
Judgment
A
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.
v.
KETHIY AN PERUMAL
OCTOBER' 11, 2004
B
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot leggars, Drug
C Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982:
Sections 3(1) and SA-Detention Order-Set aside by High Court as the
Forest Officer's Report did not mention that the activities of detenue dangerous
to public order whereas in an identical matter on basis of the said report
detention upheld-Legality of-Held: High Court failed to take note of the
D fact that factual distinction· sought to be brought about by detenu not
supportable and also the effect ofthe confessional statement and the background
facts-Further, the Forest Officer's Report clearly mentions that the activities
of detenu prejudicially affected public order- Also in view of section 5A an
extraneous and irrelevant ground does not affect validity of detention order-
Hence, order of High Court set aside.
E
Section 3(1)-Preventive Detention-To undergo remaining period of
detention in view of passage of time-Held: In all cases passage of time
cannot be a ground for not sending the detenu to serve remaining period of
detention-State has to consider effect of the objectionable acts, its continuity
F and existence of a proximate temporal nexus between the period of detention
indicated in the order by which detenu was required to be detained and the
date when deten:t is required to be detained pursuant to the Appellate Order.
K was detained under section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Boot leggars, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral
G Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabber~ Act, 1982. Respondent-detenu's wife
challenged the detention order on the ground that the Forest Officer's
Report did not anywhere indicate that the activities of the detenu has been
highly dangerous to public order. State contended that in Mrs. U.
Vijaylakshmi 's case, same Forest Officer's Report was referred and
detention order was upheld in view of section SA of the Act that an
H Jn
STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. KETHIY AN PERUMAL 323
extraneous and irrelevant ground does not affect validity of the detention A
order. High Court distinguished Mrs U. Vijaylakshmi 's case though it was
with reference to the same report of the Forest Officer since the points
· which were presently urged were not taken before High Court in the
earlier case. It allowed the petition on the ground that the Detaining
Authority took into consideration extraneous matters while recording the B
finding about unlawful activities of the detenu. ... ' ' · ! 1 r ,. •
Appellant-State and Detaining Authority contended. that the; High
Court accepted the prayer of the detenu on the ground that.theiForest:
Officer's report did not specifically refer to the alleged unlawful activities
aspect; or that the impugned acts were highly dangero'lls public' ~'rd er; to C
that there was a confession of respondent No. 1 showing clear-admissidi{
about the unlawful activities; and that the High Court did not keep in view
~ i • rt j' ·~ • - I I-· j • ' ; ' , ' : I 'r l 1 , ., l
the effect of Section 5A of the Act. · · , ,. .:· , _ . ,
Allowing the appeals, the Co.urt; ·. .'
D
HELD 1. In both Mrs. U. Vijayalakshmi's* case and the instant case
the Forest Officer's report was common. High Co~~t did n'ot t~ke 'a~te of
the fact
".J'i,I• l
that the l
factual
'··: ·
distinction
· ,; - ...;
-_JQ.1'-. r
sought,-,1to .• be
• ..... •
brought
f"-'• .. • 1.,_ J4
about -by
I•
the
detenu is not supportable. Effect of the confessional statement .and the ,1 · I; J,.j { ·
background facts have not been taken note of. The factual mistake,
committed by High Court by;observing that.there,was:no m.ention in the E'
Forest Officer's Report regarding activities being highly dangerous to
public order, is not 'sustainabte:ln' fact,-it'clearly' that activities mentions
of-the detenu' prejuCliCially affected; public''or'der·.· The- destruction of
ecoltigical system would be highly<Jangerous'to public cifder~ Furthermore~·
in any event the effect of Section'5A'of the Act carinofbe lost sight Of. In F
U. Vijayalakshmi's case this court categorically held that in view of Section
5A'6rthe Act ~ri·e~traneo.lls and frr~t~Vant ground does not affect validity
I~
• :~~ ~ t
. ,: .t ,-'I " f j ' " ·. ~ t •. J c . . • • •
ofthe'detention or<Ier. High Court erre'd in holcling that decision iii 'Mrs. ·
v. 'vuaYatakshki's ~ase -was' 1clis\inguishab1e: Oec'is,iOn'in Mr;, ''U.
~ .• ~,-' ~ I .rr. f-1· 1 r l .- t • • · :
;.J".l' . · · " ~
..,, '" _,, . ,_
1
Vijayalakshmi's case clearly'applieho the facts of the case: Hence, order.·
of High Court is set aside. [325-G; 326-D-E) - - - · G·
{l ;• •' • ~
0
Mrs. U. VijayalakShmi v. State'ofTamil Nadu and Anr,, AIR (1994) SC
[ : t p • l I J < t (" • ,, ' • • 0 :
~
16( relied ·o'n/i_,r .. ' ', t.J ' - -. - ,. '
~ i(T .•'"..:'~ . jl·~~- t ..; r·; _ 1 ~,.f ' (~ ~r,
· - · 2; Pifssagerof'.tinie in all ·cases cannot be a ground not io send ·the
detenu to serve remainder of the period of detention. It all depends on H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A the facts of the act and the continuance or otherwise of the effect of the
objectionable acts. State shall consider whether there still exists a
proximate temporal nexus between the period of detention indicated in
the order by which the detenu was required to be detained and the date
when the detenu is required to be detained pursuant to the appellate order.
B Appellant-State would pass necessary order in this regard within two
months. (328-B-C]
Sunil Fu/Chand Shah v. Union of India and Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 409
referred to.
C CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
701 of 1999.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.98 of the Madras High Court
in H.C.P. No. 641 of 1998.
'
WITH
D
Crl. A. No. 702 of 1999.
Abhay Kumar, Gopal Krishan and Subramonium Prasad for the
Appellants.
E The Judgment of the Court was delivered
ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. These two appeals involve identical issues.
The impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 702 of 1999 has its foundation
on the judgment impugned in Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 1999. Therefore,
F the factual position involved in Criminal Appeal No. 701of1999 is described.
The State of Tamil Nadu and District Magistrate & Collector, Vellore
District (hereinafter referred to as the 'detaining authority') call in question
legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High
Court quashing the order of detention dated 29.3.1988 passed by the Detaining
G Authority.
A Habeas Corpus Petition was filed by the wife of Kethiyan Perumal
(hereinafter described as "the detenu") who was detained under Section 3(1)
of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot leggers, Drug
Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act,
H 1982 (in short the 'Act'). The High Court allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition
STATEOFTAMILNADUv. KETHIYANPERUMAL[PASAYAT, J.) 325 '
primarily on the ground that the Detaining Authority took into consideration A
extraneous matters while recording the finding about unlawful activities of
the detenu or that it was highly dangerous to the public order. The High
Court distinguished the decision of this Court in Mrs. U. Vijayalakshmi v.
State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., AIR (1994) SC I6S which was relied upon by
the detaining authority. Primary stand of the writ petitioner (present respondent) B
before the High Court was that though reference was made to Forest Officer's
report and the same virtually provided the foundation of the detention, yet
there was no mention therein that activities of the detenu has been highly
dangerous to public order. The State resisted the petition on the stand that in
an identical matter reference was made to the said Forest Officer's report.
This Court in Mrs. U. Vijayalakshmi 's case (Supra) dealt with the matter in C
detail and upheld the detention. Reliance was placed on Section SA of the
Act to contend that the grounds are separable and even if one ground indicated
in the order of detention fails, on the residual grounds also a detention can
be maintained.
The High Court found that though the de.cision in Mrs. U D
Vijayalakshmi 's case (supra) was with reference to the same report of the
Forest Officer, yet points which were presently urged were not taken before
the High Court in the earlier case.
- Stand of the appellants is that the High Court accepted the prayer of the
detenu on the ground that the Forest Officer's report did not specifically refer
to the alleged unlawful activities aspect or that the impugned acts were highly
E
dangerous to public order. It is submitted that the conclusion is factually
incorrect. It was pointed out that there was a confession of respondent No.
I where there was clear admission about the unlawful activities. In any event
the effect of Section SA of the Act has not been kept in view by the High p
Court.
There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of service
of notice.
The High Court did not take note of the fact that the factual distinction G
sought to be brought about by the detenu is not supportable. In both Mrs. U.
Vijayalakshmi 's case (supra) and the present case the Forest Officer's report
was common. Effect of the confessional statement and the background facts
have not been taken note of.
Before we go to the legal aspects involved it would be necessary to sort H
' 32~ i • . ; •'-'. 'r•.,','"c'!• _!,. ~,~f,!lpl\1);': ~OUiq' R;(i::ftQRrn,[~P.04]iSUeP: :S S.C.R.
A R%£Pfillf:~ie~ B1~~i;tf!!f!e~. ;~Yr~~~\ ~ig~;~~\l\1:.J~~t~fl'!IY.~~1~as done· with. the
·H~d,t:J;Hf 14~!.e~.!i.<?H.;R~i~~~i/Y, <;~ 1 µ,}~ 1·gr9.~n~rf'iil:h~l!~ J3ore.st officer;' s. report did
R~h ~~Yi'Yhern)nd~.~i1!~(}9!Wt.·; rh.~.1,y~f~~t~on, rpublic .order ,,a~pe~t. ,In Jact, rit
cfe~x!y,,w,e.Ht\W.1~ *fit 1.~r-~iyj~i~~ 1 r(,)f t~~ detenu P!ejuqjcially,affepted, pu_blic
~Sd~r:rJ! ~li~_,~J?~<:;if!F~\ly1 ~tated_. as follcws:.; . d ._ 1 .h. / , ,. : 1 . .1. .?
B i_)r!~trnvF·;;,~ftr1rhuril~ri ·life; i~ 1 <l~jj~~<le1nt ·b'n '~~t~~; ci~~~-i;~i·r "'i~<l' he~lthy
u ~r1~· l~! . .J
.. i ,,t 1... h_,rn ,~Jd< ·;;~r. .
L•'//'.1"" ··~, ,q;~; (.:f ~1. .~!'·~:~I
1· ~
!"•... : .• ,.., iJC(J '1d1 J;•H.
agnculture for prov.1dmg food .. Destruction of sandalwood trees m
i;· /
,/_11. ~
ve1i6te. 6ist~ic1 ~ff1 ~eriO~~I), 'art'~cr tHe·:i~aiiab'i1ity 0'r 1'h1~s~r
·" •
r:"' ...Jrt l,_."' ;.··•·_:;f i 1 .t.; ;s.: I• ·..
.. , , .,
~5dJ~Hai
~; .!: ,i,~ (.I',:\~ .....
11
;"lf'.f•iL;fH;. I/ ..•~)•:i
·· .. thirigs·and cause thre'at to' public life at large <l4~ to destruction, of
: .,,ii• N'at'Urrif'F~~e'st':Eai-sy~t~cl: :·" ;,•,,;( =•·' .": ·L\••:. ,•;r, • r J' ll'; HJ
1 ,0 q J t l'". ji ~u > :,. . :.: ·.·~ -i t_): · :~· · ~!· -~··1 .·t;··· ·_,_;:r.tl"".:~·-. .. ·., .... r ;1;. 1 ·,jiJ ....1i Ob
q ' ·,r;,~.:· ,Hence· Heel that we should stop:by a!Hriearis tlie' indiSctimirrate
"··; r , felling bf frees in1 VellowDistricUn the,lhtere'st of public ·bec·ause·the
".; . .;if..ecblogical.1system is affected' itr a :ma11ner,prejudiciaP-tO'·the·puolic
• ; I : - , • t l'' .~. i 1 • .>
The factual mistake, committed by the High Court by observing that
B
·....;_ there ,was no mention. regarding, activities being •highly(dangerous to 'public
order; ,is ,notisustainable,' in view ·of.the details indicated and· clear· mention:
It·was :categorical Ly. stated;~haMhe. destruction .of ecological :system 'would ·be'
highly dangerous to public order. In any event.the:effect 6f Section :SA-of the:
Act cannot be lost sight of The High Court was clearly in error in holding
B tfi~t <iecisioif in: 1Md:'. U "-J!ijaydldkS'llnii ;s 1 case' 1 ('siip~a) w'as 11 HistirigUishable.
1
.. rlie-iaet.isiokinlMr.f. ·u_, Vijayalakshirli ;s 1cas'e 'csupra) 1 ciearly~appiies· to' tile'
rabis iof·->the''case; His' to.'tie ·n3teci'-thatlii1D: ·ViJ~ytilaksh'mtc71se '(supra)· r!lis'
1
cduft:l<:at~g'orically'neld that iii rview~ 6f :secti6n• SA 'dfthe'·Ab 'ai{extraheoliJ
an'd;irre1~\7atit gtouhd'Ooes~riot'affecrvalidiiy'oftile'obiention order as'Secticin
5.A:.:Was:fntro'clucea"preeiseif to-take 'clire"cff su~WarJituatidrl. 'This Couri; infer'
1
F1 a/i£1,ilierl:l aslfollows: ·cA ",)\' :;q ~·< );/', '":; 't 1' 7 " " " - ' ' ' : , .., ,._ ~.i'
"The second contention is based on the facts stated in paragraph
>;o:·:···u,:41bf:Jthe-- grourtds'of.aeterition: 'It ·E/nianifesf· fronFthe· facts1 st~ted in
paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention that the emphasis is ·tWofdld:·'
(I) that to profit frorr. the high price fetched by sandal wood !n the
.Q-; nGiJ~i."iif~gni 1IB1"rket',niliit1t 'reihn~'. M ~~n~aiA.wdria tfJe;1'i5' 6nrlthe1 i~c~ease,
·, i . '"~ th@fe~yibaa~(ing Widis~'re ad dalfge'r tbithe! e!(ol6gi~al systel~ a~cf 1'~~~'
1 1
rioq·-n br'~t~vJhtfi:q0G6fJril'rl16Jf -~t'na·~c2) 1 t1iahli~ 1 huge '~on-~y··r~l1iilg Into'
d~• 11 Ytrn"PiaAd~<hff'i1it?a1s rriilZeil:werii's'usc~pfiti1e 1<./drin-~iri~ ~n<l gcilnbi'irlg,!/
thereby converting the poor and innocenttfibals into anti~sdcl~ls. so"
Iji hri~ 0 /N,:i~~i~·~sLnrBtW~P,~ct is conc~r~~?- w~ 1find from th~ grou11ds of
;) H STATE"OFTAMILNADUv.KETHIYANPERUMAL[PASAYAT. J.] s27
· ··".' ,i·"deteHtion thattlie &ienJ was iii.volve'd in two slmilkr casd;iri'ttie past 1A
'"'•' ' arid the impugned order' of detention was pa~~ed after he 'was found
- "'~"' ''io' have indtilgdi'in 'sYmifar activity or( fst 'rviay; 1992. As~is"clear
I , ,;from'' the ex1pfanat'i0n 'to'Sectio'n' 2(a)'extracted 'earli~r,'\vid'espread
' ' l(:fanggi- to' the' 'ecological' system" must be deerried fo 'affect public
1 1
'· . ' order adv'ersely witI1in the'm'eanirig of that expression in Section 2(a) ;13
' ''of the Act:Counsel submitt~d that'althotigtt'ii: is asserte'cl paragraph in
"' '4\:lf the' grounds of detention that the 'illicit cutting and ·removal of
) , ... - .l sahdal'w'ooci tree§' from 'the reserved forest' area causes widespread
::J: ''''·danger to ihe e;cologic~I system and disturbs the deficqte equilibrium
·'·' :_,' 'thereof,'ih'ere is riothing'on' record 1tci sliow thatthis assertion·is'well
"'' ' 1 · • t'oUnded. We'are' afraid\.Ve cannot accept this s'ubfuissio~ made:by ihe C
'. 1 'fl · · -. · .. · ~ ·
f • · .-•
. ~'· • ' · • t . - • · ' nc · - ~
learned counsel for the detehu. Itis'manifest from paragraph 4 of the
grounds of detention that this view was founded oinlfo 6pinio1f:of the
District Forest Officer, Vellore. Once it is found that the ground of
r L /. 1 ~ r 1 •
detention is one recognized by sub-section (I) ·of Section. j of the
tre ",.; 1 "Act, :i~ is,not for this Court to probe into the correctness of the alleged D
facts since this Court has a limited role in the matter of examining the
validity of the detention order.
Counsel for the detenu next contended that the second aspect of
paragraph 4 shows that extraneous considerations weighed with the
detaining authority in passing t!"le impugned detention order. He E
submitted that it is too remote to think that tribals resort to drinking,
gambling and turn anti-socials merely because some extra money
falls into their hands. Assuming without deciding that this con: ~ntion
is well founded, we are of the opinion that Section SA of the Act
takes care ofit. Even if we were to hold that this ground is extraneous
or irrelevant, that would not. affect the validity of the detention order F
as Section SA was introduced precisely to take care of such a situation.
We, therefore, do not see any merit in the second contention also."
The order of the High Court is accordingly set aside.
The impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 702 of 1999 involves G
identical issues.
On both aspects factual as well as legal, in both the appeals, the High
Court's judgments are not sustainable and are, therefore, set aside.
The residual question is whether it would be appropriate to direct the H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A respondent in each case to surrender for serving remaining period of detention
in view of passage of time. As was noticed in Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union
of India and Ors., [2000] 3 SCC 409, it is for the appropriate State to consider
whether the impact of the acts, which led to the order of detention still
survives and whether it would be desirable to send back the detenu for
B serving remainder period of detention. Necessary order in this regard shall be
passed within two months by the appellant - State. Passage of time in all
cases cannot be a ground not to send the detenu to serve remainder of the
period of detention. It all depends on the facts of the act and the contin!lance
or otherwise of the effect of the objectionable acts. The State shall consider
whether there still exists a proxim~te temporal nexus between the period of
C detention indicated in the order by which the detenu was required to be
detained and the date when the detenu is required to be detained pursuant to
the appellate order.
Appeals are allowed.
N.J. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "preventive detention"Sign in to search