Case: Dhananjoy Das Vs. District Magistrate &amp; Anr

The District Magistrate, Darrang passed an order of detention on 3rd of January, 1982 against the appellant under S. 3(3) ofthe National Security Act, 1980. The order of detention along with the grounds was supplied to the appellant on the same day, that is, on 3rd of January, 1982. The appellant was also arrested on the same day. He made a representation on the 9th of January, 1982 through the Superintendent of Special Jail who forwarded the same to the Government on 10th of January, 1982. The State Government received the same on 11th of January, 1982 and it was rejected on 13th of January, 19822. The order of detention was challenged by the appellant on two grounds : (1) that the grounds of detention were vague and (2) that the facts narrated in the grounds related to law and order situation and not to public order. The high Court repelled both the grounds and dismissed the writ petition by its order dt. 23rd of February, 1982. The High Court, however, granted a certificate for leave to appeal to this Court

Reasoning: 5. There is no doubt that if the first paragraph of the grounds constitute the grounds of detention, it is vague and the order of detention must be quashed on the ground of vagueness with regard to the statement contained therein. Therefore,the main question for consideration in this case is whether the first paragraph of the grounds is merely introductory or a preamble or aprelude. Shri Rangarajan contends that there could be no prelude or preamble to the grounds. Article 22(5) of the Constitution provides for supplying the grounds of detention.Be that as it may, the observations referred to above do not indicate that there can be no preamble or introductory para in the grounds of detention. There is no bar to have introductory paragraphs in the grounds. The observations only mean all allegations of facts which have led to the passing of the order of detention will form part of the grounds of detention. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the contention that there could be no introductory para in theThe grounds of detention read as a whole leave no room for doubt that paragraph 1 of the grounds of detention was only by way of introduction or as a preamble. In substance, it only indicates the modus operandi adopted by the various organisations to the current agitation on foreigners issue in Assam. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the grounds of detention allege a specific part played by the appellant in that agitation. On a perusal of grounds of detention as a whole we are satisfied that the view taken by the High Court that the 1st paragraph of the grounds of detention was only a preamble, prelude, or introductory para is correct. If this be the position them the vagueness in the 1st paragraph cannot be made a ground of attack on the impugned order14. The Advocate General feebly sought to contend that assuming that 1st paragraph of the grounds also constituted the grounds for detention there was no vagueness inasmuch as the material facts detailed in paragraphs 2 and 3 were sufficient to enable the appellant to make an effective representation. For example, bundh referred to in paragraph 1 has been detailed in the 2nd paragraph, non-co-operation referred to in paragraph 1 has also been clarified by necessary implication in para 2 inasmuch as Rasta Roko programme or creating obstacles in the roads necessarily helped the non-co-operation by preventing people from attending their offices or performing their statutory duties15. In the view that we have taken that the 1st paragraph of the grounds is only introductory it is not necessary to deal with this aspect of the matter at length16. This takes us to the vagueness in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the grounds of detention which specifically refer to the part played by the appellant in the agitation on specificIt must, however, be kept in mind that it is not what a party chose to put a gloss on the grounds of detention but it is the document itself which will be taken to be the proof of what weighed with the detaining authority while passing the order of detention and it is for the Court to decide whether certain paragraphs of the grounds of detention were only by way of introduction or preamble or constitute the grounds of detention itself. As observed earlier, we have meticulously perused the grounds of detention and the tenor of the document read as a whole indicates that the 1st paragraph of the grounds of detention is only by way of introduction orAfter analysing the various cases cited on either side we are of the view that the question whether a particular ground is vague will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case because vagueness is a relative term. What may be vague in one case may not be so in similar circumstances of the other case. If the basic facts have been given in a particular case constituting the grounds of detention which enable the detenu to make an effective representation, merely because meticulous details of facts are not given will not vitiate the order of detention. We have meticulously examined paragraphs 2 and 3 of the grounds of detention and we are satisfied that basic facts have been given to enable the appellant to make an effective representation. Of course, it would have been better if other minute details had also been given36. Lastly we take up the plea raised on behalf of the appellant that the facts alleged in the grounds of detention only make out a case for maintenance of law and order and not of public order. The difference between the expressions law and order and public order has been the subject matter of consideration by this Court on various occasions.