MRS ARUNA SEN VS BANGLADESH 27 DLR 1975

 

Analysis of the fact;

Chanchal Sen, the son of Aruna Sen, was arrested in the evening of 30^th March, 1974 under section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but had subsequently  been detained under section 3(1)(a) of the Special Power Act, 1974. In this writ petition the validity of the arrest and detention of Chanchal sen the son of the petitioner had been challenged.

Argument from the Appellant;

It was argued that 

The order of detention under the Special Power Act, 1974 was an afterthought and an abuse of the executive authority. The allegations contained in the grounds of detention are false, concocted and baseless.

Argument from the Respondent:

It was argued that 

v  The detenue was an active worker of a secret subversive organization and carrying on the activities of that organization remaining in the underground. He and his said organization are involved in committing murders, armed robberies etc.

v  In February, 1974 the Rakkhi Bahini recovered a huge quantity of arms and ammunitions from his house and nearby places and certain prejudicial documents, booklets and leaflets from his house.

v  The detenue was also accused in two separate cases.

v  The satisfaction of a person is a subject matter and no mention of reasonableness in the statue. So, it does not appear to be the legislative intent that the satisfaction of the detaining authority should be the subject of judicial review.

Issues :

1.      Whether the grounds of detention communicated to the detenue are relevant to the objects as provided in the Special Power Act, 1974?

2.      Whether the said grounds or any of them are vague and indefinite in their terms that it can be said that the detenue has been deprived of his constitutional right of making a representation provided under article 33?

3.      Whether there is any material basis for all of the said grounds?

Decision:

The order of detention under section 3(1) of the Special Power Act, 1974 in the instant case was illegal because there was no material before the court on the basis of which a reasonable man may be satisfied as to the connection of the detenue with the illegal activities of a secret organization and as to the necessary of detaining him for the purpose of preventing him from acting prejudicially to the security of the state, public safety and public order.

Reasoning behind the decision:

The above decision was taken on the following grounds:

v  The said grounds excepting the part of the grounds relating to recovery of unauthorized arms and ammunitions were extremely vague and not sufficient for the purpose of helping the detenue to make an effective representation at the earliest opportunity within the meaning of the article 35(5) of our constitution.

v  Regarding recovery of unauthorized arms and ammunitions no official record had been placed before the court. No seizure list had been produced nor had any affidavit been sworn by anybody who was present at the time of the search of the house. No definite date of the recovery had been stated anywhere. None of the prejudicial documents, booklets, leaflets are stated in the ground. So, it was very difficult to determine whether there was any connection between the detenue and the seized arms and ammunitions.

v  No materials had been placed to show that there any dacoity in which the detenue was implicated or any of the said offences had a connection with the prejudicial activities of the said organization.

Principle:

The following principles came out from the judgment:

v  Subjective satisfaction is not beyond the pale of judicial determination. Court can determine whether the grounds are vague or indefinite.

v  Grounds of detention are to be disclosed and that must be subjected to objective judicial test except in case of war time.

v  Principles of natural justice are to be followed when an authority takes decision affecting rights and liberties of a citizen.

v  Preventive detention on the grounds which are irrelevant or nonexistent is bad but on the grounds of vague or indefinite is illegal.

 

Importance of this case:

This is one of the landmark cases where it was said that grounds of detention were subject to objective satisfaction of the court and no subjective satisfaction was outside the ambit of judicial scrutiny. This gives the power of judicial scrutiny of court regarding the much talked event preventive detention that violates fundamental rights of a citizen.