Shri Dohawla vs The District Magistrate and Others

B.L. Hansaria, J.—We propose to set out in the main two of the grounds which had led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in the present case to order for the detention of the Petitioner to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State. We are doing go because infirmities in these two grounds are sufficient according to us to set the detenu at liberty. These grounds along with para 1 of the grounds read as below:

You are active supporter and harbour of the MNF/MNA hostiles and have been engaged in acting in furtherance of the aims and objectives of the unlawful MNF organization which has been aiming at and working for the secession of Mizoram from India.

That your such activities have been disturbing the public order and endangering the security of the State in Mizoram will be evident from the facts and particulars given below and it is necessary to prevent you from acting in such a manner.

(A) Before and after declaration of MNF as unlawful organization under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 on 20.1.82, you acted as intelligence Officer and passed important information like movement of Security Forces and Police in Lunglei to MNF hostiles. Your house is utilized by MNF hostiles as a rendezvous and you also work at Chief Recruiting agent of MNF in Lunglei town.

(B) * *

(C) * *

(D) * *

(E) * *

(F) * *

(G) On 22.10.(sic, MNF Raising Day meeting was held In your house under the Chairmanship of S.S. Major Lalpianga in which all MNF hostiles of Lunglei Town duly attended.

A similarly worded ground 2(A) has not been regarded by us as preamble (though para 1 has been) in Civil Rule (HC) 69 of 1982, the judgment of which bus been delivered by us today, As in that case the ground was held to be vague, we have set aside the order of detention. It has been submitted by Dr. Sarma that ground 2(A) of this case has no vagueness, inasmuch as it has been stated that the Petitioner acted as Intelligence Officer and passed important information like movement of Security Forces and Police. As such, the character of the Petitioner before and after declaration of the MNP as unlawful association has been clearly protracted in this ground, states the counsel. Though no particulars about the MNF hostiles to which the information was allegedly passed has been given, we do not think if we would be justified in setting aside the order on the score of this ground being vague.

But then ground 2(G) could not have been taken into consideration according to us informing the subjective satisfaction. It is pertinent to mention that on 22.10.81 the M.N.F. was not an unlawful organization. It was so declared on 20.1.82. It is admitted by Dr. Sarma that from 6.7.81 till 19.1.82, the M.N.F. was a lawful organization. This being the position, it cannot be stated that the Petitioner was in association with an unlawful organization on 22.10.81. The activity which has been ascribed to the Petitioner by this ground has also no unlawful element in it inasmuch as what is aligned is that a meeting was held in his house. It is contended Dr. Sarma that the meeting was not an ordinary meeting because it was held to celebrate M.N.F. Rising Day, This is so, but on the language of the grounds it cannot first be said that the Petitioner was present in the meeting. This apart, according to us it would be not permissible to take into consideration for the purpose of detaining a person, a lawful activity undertaken by him relating to an association which had no stigma attached to it at the relevant time. If such activities (sic) are also allowed to be used to detain a person, it may as well be an innocent person get roped in. It is common know-ledge that many associations are banned for some particular period and are free at other times to carry on their lawful activities. If innocent acts undertaken by their member or supporter during the period the associations are not banned are relied on to use the preventive law against them, that would be punishing a person for an activity which was not unlawful at the relevant point of time.

We are, therefore, of the view that ground 2(G) was an irrelevant ground. It is worth pointing out that the activity mentioned in ground 2(G) cannot be said to have any relation by itself with endangering the security of the State. This incident has really found place in the ground to support the contention of the State that Petitioner''s activity supported the M.N.F. which is engaged in secessionist activity. But then on 22.10.81 the M.N.F. was not an unlawful organization and there is nothing to show that on or about that day the M.N.F. was indulging in secessionist activity. it is also not the case of the State that anything about it wan discussed in the meeting.

For the aforesaid reasons, the order cannot be sustained and is set aside. The petition stands allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released forthwith if he is not wanted in connection with any other case.