Case: Vinita Dattatraya Samant Vs. Commissioner of Police, Thane &amp; Others

2. On 24th June, 1981, the detenu while on his way to Shivaji Part for addressing a rally was arrested, taken to the C.I.D. Office and there served with a detention order datedissued by the Commissioner of Police, Thane. No grounds of detention and the material on which they were based were served on the detenu then. According to the first respondents affidavit in reply letter datedby the detenus Advocate Shri Dhun Canteenwalla asking for the grounds and material was not replied to as it was not accompanied with an authority from the detenu to that effect. It seems after the service of the detention order the detenu was removed to Akola District Prison, Akola, about 400 miles away from Bombay.3. Onrespondent No. 1 made a report to the State Government under section 3(4) of the National Security Act. According to respondent No. 1, however, on 28th June, 1981, the Police Officer was deputed to Akola District Prison where the detenu was detained to serve on the detenu the grounds and the material relied upon at the said prison. When the said papers were sought to be served on the detenu onthe detenu by his letter of the said date to the Commissioner of Police, Thane District had pointed out that onwhen a detention order was served on him he had requested to hand over further correspondence to his wife and that he had no connection with his family members till then but inspite of that the police from Thane had brought copy of the grounds of detention. He, therefore, by the said letter requested the authorities to hand over all the correspondence to his wife at his Bombay address. Thereafter on the said authority from the detenu a wireless message was conveyed to Bombay and accordingly the grounds of detention along with the relevant papers were served on the detenus wife at the detenus Bombay address on 30th June, 1981 along with a covering letter of the same date.4. Onthe Detaining Authority respondent No. 1 made a report to the State Government respondent No. 2 under section 3(4) of the National Security Act. On 3rd July, 1981 the State Government approved the said order of detention by the Detaining Authority as required under section 3(4) of the said National Security Act.5. In the mean time onthe detenus wife filed this petition. On 3rd July, 1981, on the day on which the petition was presented to this Court, representation was addressed on behalf of the detenu to respondent No. 2 with copies there of to respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Along with this representation, a copy of the petition was also sent to be treated as representations. On 3rd July, 1981, this Court admitted the petition after hearing the parties. It seems that on 4th July, 1981, at aboutp.m. a letter was addressed by the Government Pleader to the petitioners Advocate forwarding there with legible copies of certain documents already forwarded along with the grounds, as at the time of hearing of the admission of the petition a gievance was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that many of the photo state copies supplies to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention were liable and some totally blank.6. According to the Detaining Authority he had also despatched onby registered post a set of documents i.e. grounds and material to the detenu to Akola District Prison. However, on enquiry onit was found that the said registered packet had not reached the detenu till then. (That packet was received by the detenu onSo on the same day Police Officer was sent to Akola with a fresh set of grounds of detention along with the material wherein illegible or blankwere replaced by legible one and copies of some more documents were tendered to the detenu, he refused to accept the same and requested the same to be handed over to his wife at Bombay.7. Onrespondent No. 1 who was expected to consider the representation made on behalf of the detenu rejected the same and intimated about it to the detenus Advocate by a letter dated1, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra also rejected the detenus representation of which the detenus Advocate was intimated by a letter dated

Court's reasoning:
Now in the three incidents cited above, the Detaining Authority disclosed in no uncertain terms that he was not in a position to furnish the names of the workers who had assaulted the company employees. In these circumstances, I fail to understand what purpose would have been served and the detenu asked for any particulars from the Detaining Authority. It is, therefore, futile to contend that the ground which is vague in the first instance could have gained any precision or definiteness had the detenu asked for further particulars from the Detaining Authority. I am, therefore, not impressed with this submission of the learned Advocate General and in respect of these three incidents in ground No. 1, I hold that these grounds are irrelevant and no nexus has been established between the detenu and the assailants or the acts complained of. To that extent, these grounds would also be vague. 18. I shall now refer to ground No. 1 incident No. (x). In this instance, it is alleged that onthe detenu held a meeting of 500 workers at the companys gate. The detenu addressed the meeting for a few minutes and then left abruptly. After his departure, his close assistants T.S. Boarde, General Secretary of the detenus union, Shri Mungekar, Joint Secretary, S.K. Shaikh, Chabukswar, Ram Avatar Singh and others addressed the workers and instigated them to commit offences like assaults and rioting in order to create an atmosphere of terror so that the management of Wellman as also other managements would come round and settle the matters with the detenu. On the next day an offence was registered against T.S. Borade and seven others at Kapurbawdi Police Station. The report of this meeting has been furnished as Ex. No. 14. On a perusal of this document it is clear that the instigation to commit offences or to create an atmosphere of terror was not induced by the detenu himself but by his colleagues of collaborators. In the ground itself it is mentioned that the detenu left the place after addressing the meeting only for a few minutes. Can, therefore, the detenu be held responsible for the speeches made by his colleagues This ground, therefore, also lacks any nexus as far as the detenu is concerned. 19. The next ground is ground No. 1 incident No. (xvii). In this ground it was alleged that from the incidents in Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. it became clear that the detenu had encouraged violence which had alarmed not only the loyal workers, the management staff and other workers and managements in the area of Kolshet Road but also the law abiding public on the public roads and those using public transport; thus posing a threat to public order. Now from the 17 incidents which have been appended to ground No. 1, it would be difficult to find any material from which one could conclude that it was the detenu who had encouraged violence amongst the workers. There appears to be no basis or no material whatever on which the Detaining Authority could have come to this conclusion. I must, therefore, conclude that the conclusion arrived at by the Detaining Authority is a conclusion which no reasonable person could have arrived at. 20. Ground No. 2 concerns as industry known as Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd. In the preamble to this ground it has been stated that in August 1980 the detenu tried to infiltrate his union and have it recognised by the management of this concern. Since the union was not recognised, it is alleged that the detenu instigated his followers to use unfair labour practices such as go slow which began fromHere again there appears no basis for arriving at this conclusion that it was the detenu who instigated the workers to follow a go slow policy. But what is more surprising is that in incident No. (i) which is appended to this ground it has been stated that ona bus taking the loyal workers of the said company proceeding to the Railway Station was stoned by workers owing allegiance to the union of the detenu, that four workers in the bus were injured and damage of Rs. 800/was caused to the bus. On a perusal of Ex. No. 23 which is the F.I.R. of some workers travelling in the bus, one does not find any mention of the fact that the assailants were the persons who owed allegiance to the union of the detenu. There is, therefore, no connection established between the perpetrators who pelted the stones and the union of the detenu, muchless with the detenu himself. This ground also, therefore, must be held to be vague and irrelevant. 21. Ground No. 3 concerns the factory of M/s. Teksons Pvt. Ltd. situated at Koshet Road, Thane. In the preamble it is stated that the detenu tried to enter his union into the factory and have it recognised by the management. In incident No. (iv) of this ground concerning M/s. Teksons Pvt. Ltd., it is stated that onat 16.00 hrs. the detenus followers obviously with his covert encouragement assaulted Shri Sarvatsing who had approached the management to seek a job as a Security Officer. The incident, it is alleged, took place in a local train between Kanjur Marg and Ghatkopar, where the said Sarvatsing was assaulted with a cycle chain the presence of the travelling public. This incident cause commotion in the train and created panic and terror amongst the law abiding commuters. Reliance has been placed on Exhibit No. 38 which was the F.I.R. of the said Sarvatsingh. In the column, name of the accused it has been mentioned : In all 7 persons name and address not know of whom two were from Teksons Company. The complainant stated that he was interviewed and asked to commence worked fromHe then stated that seven persons armed it knife, gupti and cycle chains come in the train and threateningly asked him for the letter of appointment, since he did not hand over the letter of appointment, they beat him with cycle chains. He stated that he was not aware of the fact that there was a strike in the company. He also stated that he was not aware of the factor that there was a strike in the company. He also stated that he would be able to identify two out of the seven assailants. On a perusal of the F.I.R., it will be seen that not a word is stated that the seven assailants belongs to the union of the detenu although what was mentioned was that two of the workers were from M/s. Teksons Pvt. Ltd. This incident is also an example of how the Detaining Authority has relied on his imagination in arriving at the conclusions that the assailants were the followers of the detenu and that they had received covert encouragement from the detenu without the slighted basis for arriving at such a conclusion. The grounds, therefore, has no connection or nexus as between the detenu and the assailants, so far as this incident which has been complained of.22. Ground No. 4 relate to the factory of M/s.Precisions Castings which was situated as S.V. Road, Manpada, Thane. In Incident No. (i) appended to this ground it has been stated that on81 the followers of the union of the detenu squatted inside the factory obviously on your instructions and damaged expensive moulds worth Rs. 9,200/in respect of which two criminal cases were registered at the Kapurbawadi Police Station. The F.I.R. in respect of this incident has been furnished to the detenu as Exhibit No. 40. On a perusal of this F.I.R., it becomes apparent that there was nothing in the F.I.R. to suggest that the miscreants who caused damage to the expensive moulds were the followers of the union belonging to the detenu. There is also nothing in the F.I.R. to suggest that the damage was caused under the instructions of the detenu. There is, therefore, no material or basis upon which the Detaining Authority could have come to the conclusion that the miscreants in respect of this incident belonged to the union of the detenu or that they were working under his instructions.23. Ground No. 7 related to a company known as Ferrodie Ltd. situated at Wagle Estate, Thane. Here also it is stated that the detenu wanted the management to recognise his union and for that purpose he ordered the management to see him at his residence. Incident No. (i) appended to this ground is in respect of an incident which took place onwhen a lorry going out of the factory with finished goods was obstructed by the followers of the detenu and its driver was threatened. Now it is pertinent to note that in this ground only a nebulous expression such as your followers has been made use of. Who the followers were or on what basis it was stated that they were the follows of the detenu, is not mentioned in that ground. Exhibit No. 56, the F.I.R. on which reliance has been placed, does not make this position clear.24. A similar expression i.e. your followers can also be found in incident No. (i) appended to Ground No. 8 which is in respect of a company known as Ashok SunilCompany situated at Wagle Estate, Thane. In this incident it was alleged that onthe followers of the detenu gheraoed the management, after which an offence was registered. Here also no attempt has been made to show any connection between the detenu and the miscreants.25. Ground No. 9, incident No. (i) concerns a factory known as Fouress Engineer (India) Pvt. Ltd., situated at Wagle Estate, Thane. In incident No. (i) appended to this ground it has been stated that onthe detenu organised a public meeting in front of the gate of the company and his associates Arivind Bhiva Wani and others made provocative speeches and used abusive words against the police and the management at the instigation of the detenu. The relevant documents on which reliance has been placed is marked Exhibit No. 66. On a perusal of this document there appears to be no basis for coming to the conclusion that Wani had made a speech at the instigation of the detenue.26. Another incident which savours of rank ambiguity is furnished in incident No. (iii) of Ground No. 12 which concerns a factory known as Golden Dyes Corporation. In incident No. (iii) it has been mentioned that onShantaram Choudhary and others held a meeting at the gate and threatened the management that they would not be allowed to go by Thane Agra Road. In this ground it has not even been mentioned that Shataram Choudhary had any connection with the detenu or his union. However, in the report prepared by the police and furnished to the detenu as Exhibit No. 85 there is a bald statement that these men belonged to the Datta Samant Union. A labour union may consist of hundreds of workers as its members. The question : can the President or an office bearer of a labour union be held responsible for the individual acts of its members unless it was shown that the President or the office bearers directly instigated the same27. In Incident No. (iv) relating to Ground No. 12 in respect of Golden Dyes Corporations it has been stated that on Naronha of M/s. Francis Kaleins Pvt. Ltd. wanted to meet the management of Golden Dyes. He was obstructed by your men and was thus unable to enter the factory premises, but was able to enter the factory premises only on the intervention of the police. Whilst coming out to the factory, Naronha was held and robbed of his brief case. If the Detaining Authority makes us of expressions like your followers, your men workers belonging to your union without given any specified names, how is the detenu expected to make an effective representation against such charges save and except by making a bald denial of the same.28. In Ground No. 16 which related to a factory known as K.R. Steel Pvt. Ltd., the detenu was alleged to have again made an attempt to infiltrate his union into the said factory and resorted to the familiar pressure tactics ofpolicy. In Incident No. (i) appended to that ground it has been statedyour obvious advice so openly given onthe workers defeated the tyres of the car of the Commercial Manager, entered the office of the Personal Manager and manhandled him, with the result that the management was forced to close the operations of the factory tillrespect of this incident it has not even been stated that the workers belonged to the union of the detenu. In the report (Exhibit No. 105) so far as this incident is concerned, there is no mention thereof and all that is stated is that there was an amicable settlement between the management and the workers.28. Another example of a vague and ambiguous ground is furnished by Ground No. 17 which concerns a Company known as Buyer India Ltd. It is stated in this ground that onten to fifteen workers of Bayer Co. controlled by the union headed by the detenu went to the residence of one Bauskar, the Administraive Manager of that company at Dombivali in his absence and met his wife and threatened her that they would murder the said Bauskar and dispose of his body in such a way that she would not be able to set her eyes on it. This had a terrible psychological effect on the lady and also on the neighbours living in the area who had heard of the episode. The document relied upon in this case is the F.I.R. lodged by one Usha Bauskar. If this F.I.R. (Exhibit No. 106) the lady complained that about five or six persons came and stood near the gallery next to her window. One of them was a bearded person who asked her whether her husband was at home. When she replied in the negative that person asked her as to where her husband had gone. When the complainant told the bearded person that she did not know where her husband was, those persons asked her where her husband was roaming when the company was closed and there was a lock out. She then informed those persons that she did not know the whereabouts of her husband. Two of the persons then told her that she would see her husband in pieces. The complainant stated that these persons appeared to be marathi people and were young. On the basis of this F.I.R, it is difficult to see how any one could come to the conclusion that these men belonged to a labour union controlled by the detenu.29. In all the incidents narrated above, it will be seen that bald statements like your followers, your men and workers controlled by you were used without the slightest basis for coming to this conclusion. If the grounds are ambiguous to the extent to which all the incidents narrated above are, then it would be difficult for the detenu to make any effective representation against the grounds of detention. In the above incidents no nexus had been established as between the detenu and the assailants or perpetrators of the violent activities mentioned in the various incidents.30. I shall now discuss and deal with four such incidents, which do not form part of pattern sought to be established and which is the second reason, why I consider the order of detention to be vitiated. The first of such incident is Ground No. 1, Incident No. (iv) which was in relation to a worker of M/s. Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd. It is stated in the said incident that onat 13.15 hrs. Ramnarayan Sarojee, a followers of your union was found with a Rampuri knife by Head Constable M.S. Patil of Wagle Estate Police Station. He wasunder section 37(1) read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The document relied upon in this incident is Exh. No. 26 which was the F.I.R. given by H.C. Patil, in which the N.C. stated that a prohibitory order under section 27(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act had been promulgated by the District Magistrate. The Head Constables then stated that on seeing him patrolling, the accused person started running away from the place near Rubber Products Co. Since suspicion was arosed he was chased and caught. Apart from the fact that Exhibit No. 26 furnished no clue to the fact that the said Sarojee was a follower of the union belonging to the detenu, it is difficult to understand how the possession of a Rampuri knife by a workers could establish the pattern which the Detaining Authority sought to establish in the grounds. This incidents, therefore, is totally extraneous to the pattern sought to be established by the Detaining Authority.31. The next incident concerns the company known as Voltas Ltd. in the ground which has been marked as No. 5. In Incident No. (i) appended to this ground it has been stated that onone V.J. Naik belonging to the detenus union abused and assaulted the Security Officer and in this connection one N.C. was recorded at Vartaknagar Police Station. The extract of N.C. which was furnished to the detenu was marked as Exhibit No. 48. On a perusal of this exhibit it is noticed that an innocuous incident had occurred in the canteen involving the canteen manager and the said Naik. It appears that the said Naik tried to steel some tomatoes from the canteen. The canteen manager apprehended him and questioned him. The Security Officer had also intervened in the quarrel between the two. This incident is totally unconnected with the pattern sought to be established by the Detaining Authority and further it is an incident which has no nexus with the detenu.32. The next incident is incident No. (iii) to Ground No. 5 involving the same company i.e. Voltas Ltd. In this it is stated that onyour followers abused and threatened Sunder Badrinath Yadav, a supervisor of the factory who lodged his N.C. complaint. The N.C. complaint has been marked as Exh. No. 50. This also is an incident which is so innocuous that it cannot be stated that it had any connection with the pattern of tactics of infiltration and recognition of a union within a factory. As in the previous incident, this incident is also a stray incident of abuse and threats given by one worker to a supervision or a canteen manager of the factory.33. The above instances would go to show that there are certain incidents mentioned in the grounds which are totally unconnected with the general pattern sought to be established in the grounds by the Detaining Authority.At this stage it will be pertinent to cite the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of (Anil Dev v. State of West Bengal)25, reported in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 832, wherein the learned Judge were pleased to lay downcourse, the veil of subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority cannot be lifted by the courts with a view to appreciate its objective sufficiency. Nevertheless, the opinion of the officer must be honest and real, and not so fanciful or imaginary that on the facts alleged no rational individual will entertain the opinion necessary to justify detention. So also if the grounds relied on have nothing to do with the prejudicial purposes stipulated in the statute, no nexus exists and the order is bad. Even if the incident attributed to the detenu has some connection with the obnoxious activities, it should not be too trivial in substance nor too stale in point of time as to snap the rational link that must exist between the vicious episode and the prejudicial activity sought to be interdicted."On a perusal of the various incidents stated above, the conclusion is evitable that several of the incidents are completely vague and no nexus has been established as between the detenu and the activities complained of or the perpetrators thereof. There are several incidents which are totally unconnected with the pattern which has been formulated in the grounds i.e. of detenus attempt to infilterate his union in several industrial establishments.35. At the end of the grounds, the Detaining Authority has annexed an epilogue which is the genesis of the pattern of behaviour indulged in by the detenu. In this paragraph (which has not been numbered) it is statedthe above narrative of events that have followed your entry into 18 industrial units in the limits of the Thane Police Commissioner it is abundantly clear that there is a definite pattern in your tactics which disturb public order. Every time you attempted to dislodged the recognised union, you do so by openly flouting the labour laws and demanding direct and immediate recognition from the management. To that end you encouraged your followers to indulge in violent and lawless activities like threats, assaults, rioting, damage to persons and property and even murder ......... The extent of violence is such and the forms it has taken so alarming and the area covered so vast and the population affected so great that public order has inevitably been disturbed by the frequent and repeated cases of assault and intimation by your associates with your active support and encouragement".36. On a perusal of the various grounds and the incidents annexed thereto, it is difficult to find any material or basis on which the Detaining Authority could have come to the conclusion that it was the detenu who had encouraged his followers or could have given active support in their violent and criminal activities. I am, therefore, of the view the grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 17 are totally irrelevant and bear no connection with the detenu. To that extent they vitiate the order of detention. The incidents mentioned in grounds 2, 5 and 8 are stray incidents which have no connection whatsoever with the pattern sought to be established in the grounds by the Detaining Authority. This also would vitiate the order of detention.37. In view of the fact that I have come to the conclusion that the grounds are vitiated by the vices of irrelevance and vagueness, I do not think it necessary to deal with the third ground relating to the Press Conference in which the Chief Minister is alleged to have made certain observations in respect of the detenu, thereby breaching his representation.38. Finally it needs to be stated that we arethat as a consequence of our decision we shall be unleashing upon an unsuspecting populace a person who, we are informed, has come to pose a serious threat to the industrial peace of this city and the State. That indeed is unfortunate. But, hard cases cannot be permitted to make bad laws. We can do no better than to repeat in ringing tones thewords of Justice Frank further, "The history of personal liberty is largely the history of insistance on observance of procedure. And observance of procedure has been the bastian against want on assaults on personal liberty over the years". Meticulous adherence of procedure established by law is the only safeguard of personal freedom.