Holding

The detention order was valid and the High Court's quashing of it was erroneous.

Summary

The State of Tamil Nadu issued a preventive detention order against Balasubramaniam in 1999. The Madras High Court, hearing a habeas corpus petition under Articles 226 and 21 of the Constitution, quashed the order on the ground that the sponsoring authority’s affidavit mentioned six cases while the detention order referred to four occurrences, and that the detenu had not been provided copies of documents for all cases, thereby denying him a fair opportunity to defend himself. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the detention order and found that it merely described a single incident occurring at four locations (Sobanapuram section, Koppampatti beat, Manamalai forest, Anaikkal road) and did not constitute four separate occurrences. Consequently, the High Court had misapplied its mind and erred in setting aside the detention order. The Supreme Court held that the detention order was valid, but noted that the period of detention had already elapsed, so the detenu need not serve any remaining term. The appeal was disposed of in favour of the State, and no costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court correctly quashed the preventive detention order on the basis of alleged procedural deficiencies concerning the number of occurrences and supply of case documents.
Whether the detention order was valid despite the alleged discrepancy between the affidavit and the order.
Whether the detenu should be required to serve any remaining period of detention after the order was quashed when the original detention period had already expired.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 21, s. Article 226

Subjects

preventive detentionhabeas corpusArticle 226Article 21procedural fairnessdetention orderSupreme CourtHigh Court

Judgment

A THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.
II.

BALASUBRAMANIAM

FEBRUARY 20, 2001

B [S.N. VARIAVA AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.]

Criminal law

Constillllion of India-Articles 226 & 21 Preventive Detention-High
C Court quashing detention of Respondent-On ground of non-supply of
documents relating to four occurrences-Held, on facts, only one incident
mentioned in detention order-Detention valid-Further held, in the
circumstances detenu need not undergo remaining period of sentence.

The Appellant passed detention order against Respondent which was
D quashed by the High Court in a Habeas Corpus Petition on the ground that in
the Affidavit of the Sponsoring Authority it has been mentioned that the
Detenu was involved in six cases and that in t!t_e detention Order it has been
stated that Detenu was involved in four occurrences in four different cases,
that the Detenu had been given copies of documents in respect of one case
E only even though the Detaining Aut.ltority was bound to give copies in all the
six cases and that the Detenu had been denied an effective opportunity to
defend himself. Hence this appeal by the State.

Disposing of the Appeal, the Court

F HELD : I. A careful reading of the Detention Order shows that it does
not refer to four occurrences in four different places, but is only mentioning
that an offence had taken place in Sobanapuram section, Koppampatti beat,
Manamalai forest and at Anaikkal road. Had the High Court applied its mind
properly, it would have realised that there were no four occurrences in four
different places. Admittedly, the Detenu has been given copy of the documents
G in the adverse case relied upon. There has been total non-application of mind
on the part of the High Court.11144-D-EI

2. The Detention Order was of 1999. The same had been quashed by the
High Court in March 2000. The period of detention is over. This is not a case
H where the Detenu should be made to surrender to undergo the remaining
1142
STATEOFTAMILNADUv. BALASUBRAMANIAM[S.N. VARIAVA,J.] J )43

- ·y period of detention; [1144-F[ A
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 206 of2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.2000 of the Madras High Court
in H.C.P. No. 869of1999. B
R. Mohan and V.G. Pragas11m for the Appellant.

R.S. Suri, (A.C.) and V.K. Shailendra for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
S. N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted.

Heard parties.

This Appeal is against an Order dated I 0th March, 2000. By this Order D
a detention Order dated 7th April, 1999 has been quashed on the ground that
in the Affidavit of the Sponsoring Authority it has been mentioned that the·
Detenu was involved in six cases and that in the detention Order it has been
stated that the Detenu was involved in four occurrences in four different
t cases. It is held that the Detenu had been given copies of documents in
respect of one case only even though the Detaining Authority was bound to E
give copies in all the six cases. It is held that thus the Detenu had been denied
an effective opportunity to defend himself. On this ground the detention
Order was set aside.

It is correct that the Detaining Authority has to apply its mind before
issuing a Detention Order. However, it is equally important that the Court, F
hearing a Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, also applies its mind before it quashes a Detention Order. Undoubtedly,
in the Affidavit filed by the Sponsoring Authority reliance has been placed
on six cases. However, the Detaining Authority has not placed reliance on six

..
cases. This itself shows that the Detaining Authority had applied its mind and G
not gone just by what was stated by the Sponsoring Authority.

In Para 2 of the impugned Order it is stated as follows:

"2. In sub-para 2 of paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention it is
stated as follows: H
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I) I S.C.R.

A "He has committed the above mentioned offences in Sobanapuram,
Koppampatti, Manamalai, Anaikkal which are rich in sandalwood and
other species and wild life."

The detenu is stated to have been involved in four occurrences in
four different cases .............."
B
From the statement extracted above it has been concluded that there
were four occurrences in four different places. However, the same Detention
Order also sets out as follows:

"On 16-3-99 on a reliable information, the Forest Range Officer, 1
C Perambalur and incharge of Thuraiyur Range, formed a special party
led by him, proceeded at about 5 PM to conduct forest offences raid
at Sobanapuram Section, Koppampatti beat, Manmalai Reserve Forest
Jee road."

Thus it is clear that Sobanapuram is a Section, Koppampatti is a beat, Manmalai
D is a reserve forest and Anaikkal is a name of the road. A careful reading
shows the Detention Order does not refer to four occurrences in four different
places, but is only mentioning that an offence had taken place in Sobanapuram
section, Koppampatti beat, Manamalai forest and at Anaikkal road. Had the
High Court applied its mind properly, it would have realised that there were -t
E no four occurrences in four different places. Admittedly, the Detenu has been
given copy of the documents in the adverse case relied upon.

In our view, there has been total non-application of mind on the part
of the High Court. The impugned Order of the High Court cannot be sustained
and it is hereby set aside.
F However, the Detention Order was of 1999. The same had been quashed
by the High Court in March 2000. The period of detention is over. In our view,
this is not a case where the Detenu should be made to surrender to undergo
the remaining period of detention.

G The Appeal stands disposed off accordingly. There will be no Order
as to costs.

V.M. Appeal disposed of.