Case: Arun Kumar Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal

1. By his order, dated April 7, 1971, the District Magistrate, Howrah, directed the detention of the petitioner under Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, Presidents Act 19 of 1970 on his being satisfied that it was necessary to do so with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested and detained in jail on May 3, 1971, when he was served with grounds for his detention as required by the Act2. The grounds so served upon him alleged that at a secret meeting held on January 14, 1971, at Balak Sangha Maidan in Tantipara Lane, Shibpur, the petitioner volunteered to be a member of the Action Squad of what is commonly known as the Naxalite party and assured the members of that party present there "to supply pipe guns, ammunition andg materials to the Action Squad". He also "urged the members to select school teachers, supporting the CPI (M) and responsible for making anti CPI (ML) propaganda among the students and remove them from the partys way by killing them, to continue raids on educational institutions, post offices, police pickets etc. and to annihilate jotedars, police personnel, business men and members of the rival political parties", and "took resolutions to stop the ensuingm election in Howrah District, particularly in Shibpur area, raid educational institutions, post offices, police camps and other Government offices and to annihilate jotedars, business men, police personnel etc". The second ground was that during a raid by the police on January 28, 1971 at about 2 a.m. the petitioner along with another associate was found in a room which was used as a miniature workshop for manufacturing pipe guns and one complete and one incomplete pipe guns together with some implements for manufacturing improvisedfirearmsetc., were seized. The said room stood in the petitioners name and he and his said associate were working there as engineers of the said workshop. The petitioner and his said associate were arrested by the police during the said raid.

Court's reasoning:
7. Ground No. (1) if properly read, first describes a secret meeting of the member of Naxalite party held on January 14, 1971 and then its proceeding. These proceedings, as narrated in the ground, fall into four parts, namely, (1) that the petitioner volunteered to become a member of its Action Squad, which presumably carries out and implements the decisions taken by the party and assured the members present there to supply pipe guns, ammunition and materials for manufacturing bombs to the Action Squad, (2) that he urged the members to select teachers who supported the CPI (M), and who were responsible for propaganda against the Naxalite party among students and to remove them from the way of the party by killing them, (3) that the party should continue its raids in educational institutions, post offices, police pickets etc. and to annihilate jotedars, police personnel, businessmen and members of rival political parties, and (4) that the petitioner and those present at the meeting resolved to prevent them election from being held, particularly in Shibpur area, to achieve which educational institutions, post offices, police camps and other Government offices should be raided and jotedars, businessmen, police personnel etc. should be killed8. It could perhaps be urged that becoming a member of the Action Squad of a party or even attempting to prevent am election from being held would be activities which, taken by themselves, might not fall under clause (d) of Section 3(2), and therefore, would be irrelevant for the purpose of reaching the subjective satisfaction under Section 3(1). But the grounds must be read as a whole and not in parts, one isolated from the rest. If read as a whole, it is perfectly clear that while volunteering to become a member of the Action Squad, the petitioner also offered to supply guns and ammunition to carry out the objectives resolved upon in that meeting, which frankly were to remove those who came in the way of the party by killing them withfirearmsand ammunition, which the petitioner offered to supply. The other objective was to prevent thes election, particularly in Shibpur area. That was sought to be achieved by raids on educational institutions, post offices, police camps and other Government offices and by killing jotedars, businessman, police personnel etc., and creating by such activities such confusion and chaos that holding of the election would become impossible. It is clear, thus, that the elimination of those who carried on propaganda against the interests of the party and preventing the election from being held were to be achieved by means of killing with guns and ammunition which the petitioner volunteered to supply and by destroying educational institutions, Government offices, police camps and thereby creating disorder, in Shibpur area particularly, so that, no election could possibly be held. Read as a whole, it is impossible to find any irrelevant or extraneous matter mixed up with relevant matter in ground No. (1). There is, thus, no analogy between the present case and that of Dwarka Das Bhatias case (supra) from which counsel sought support. In our view ground No. (1) does not suffer from the infirmity for which the detention order in that case was held to be bad.