Krishna Iyer. J.
1. The order of detention challenged before us is dated 27th February, 1973. The subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate of Nadia, who directed the detention, is based upon three criminal adventures of the petitioner dated 8th November 1971, 9th December 1971 and 25th August 1972.
2. The incidents themselves look rather serious but also stale, having regard to the long gap between the occurrences and the order of detention. One should have expected some proximity in time to provide a rational nexus between the incidents relied on and the satisfaction arrived at. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that unexplained and long delay will be fatal to the plea of subjective satisfaction. In the present case, counsel for the State. Shri G. S. Chatterjee, took time to furnish an explanation as to why there was such a long delay for the District Magistrate to pass the order of detention. Unfortunately, we are no wiser to-day than at the previous hearing. In short, we are not taken into confidence by the District Magistrate as to why there should have been such an inordinate delay. We, in turn therefore, are not satisfied about the bona fides of the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate.
3. In result, the order of detention must fail as illegal. The petition is allowed, the rule nisi is made absolute and the petitioner directed to be released forthwith.
4. Petition allowed.
Jagan Nath Biswas v. State Of West Bengal
Jagan Nath Biswas v. State Of West Bengal
(Supreme Court Of India)
Writ Petition No. 24 Of 1974 | 20-01-1975
Advocate List
- For the Appearing Parties -------------
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. SARKARIA
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.R. KRISHNA IYER
Eq Citations
- 1975 CRILJ 1329
- (1975) 4 SCC 115
- AIR 1975 SC 1516
- LQ/SC/1975/18
Head Note
A. Constitutional Law — Fundamental Rights — Right to life and personal liberty — Unlawful detention — Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority — Necessity for — Proximity in time between incidents relied on and satisfaction arrived at — Necessity for — Unexplained and long delay in passing detention order — Effect of — Preventive Detention — Unlawful detention — Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority — Necessity for — Proximity in time between incidents relied on and satisfaction arrived at — Necessity for — Unexplained and long delay in passing detention order — Effect of — Preventive Detention Act, 1950 — S. 3 — Criminal Trial and Procedure — Delayed justice — Effect of — Delay in passing detention order (Paras 1 and 2) B. Constitutional Law — Fundamental Rights — Right to life and personal liberty — Unlawful detention — Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority — Necessity for — Proximity in time between incidents relied on and satisfaction arrived at — Necessity for — Held, one should have expected some proximity in time to provide a rational nexus between the incidents relied on and the satisfaction arrived at — Unexplained and long delay will be fatal to the plea of subjective satisfaction — Preventive Detention — Unlawful detention — Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority — Necessity for — Proximity in time between incidents relied on and satisfaction arrived at — Necessity for — Unexplained and long delay in passing detention order — Effect of — Preventive Detention Act, 1950 — S. 3 — Criminal Trial and Procedure — Delayed justice — Effect of — Delay in passing detention order (Paras 1 and 2)
