Gurjeet Kaur And Surjeet Kaur vs State Of Delhi And Anr.

on 21 November, 1985

Delhi High Court Delhi High Court Gurjeet Kaur And Surjeet Kaur vs State Of Delhi And Anr. on 21 November, 1985 Equivalent citations: ILR 1987 Delhi 494 Author: M Sharief-Ud-Din Bench: R Aggarwal, M Sharief-Ud-Din JUDGMENT Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we deem it proper to decide, both these petitions (Dr. W. 169185 and Cr. W. 176[85) together with one single judgment for the reason that one of the grounds for detention, namely ground No. 4, is common to both. These two writ petitions have been filed to challenge the detention of one Shri Rajinder Singh and one Shri Dalip Singh under section 3(l)(a) read with section 2(e) of the National Security Act, 1980. Criminal Writ No. 169185 has been filed by the wife of the detenu and Criminal Writ Petition No. 176185 has also been filed by the wife of the detenu. The 'order of detention has been passed in both the cases by the Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi on 2nd May 1985. (2) In Criminal Writ Petition No. 169185 the detenu Rajinder Singh was an employee in the Ministry of Law and a few days after his detention he was dismissed from service on 6th May 1985. He had been transferred to Bombay by an order dated 25-1-85. On 27th May 1985 the detenu made a representation to' the Administrator and .on 4th June 1985 lie received an intimation about his representation having been considered and rejected. On 12th June 1985 the detenu received an intimation that his case has been placed before the Advisory Board which has opined that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. On 8th July 1985 Rajinder Singh detenu wrote a letter asking for a copy of the complaint alleged to have been made by Shri Karunakaran Pillai together with a. copy of the note dated 19-7-84 of Dr. S. C. Jain and the copy of enquiry report of Dr. S. C. Jain, Additional Legal Advisor. The detenu received a letter dated 12-7-1985. Rajinder Singh ji detenu again wrote a letter dated 22-7-85 to the respondents asking them to supply a copy of the complaint alleged to have been made by Shri Karunakaran Pillai. On 29th July 1985 the detenu was informed that the Advisory Board vide Its report dated 19-7-85 has again opined that there was still sufficient cause for his detention under the National Security Act. The detenu was further informed that the complaint of Shri Karunakaran Pillai, Ministry of Law was misplaced and was not available. (3) The detention has been challenged on various grounds, namely that by refusing to supply a copy of the complaint made by Shri Karunakaran Pillai, the constitutional requirement of Article 22(5) has not been satisfied and the detenu has been prevented from making an effective and purposeful representation. Challenge to detention has also been thrown on the ground that the grounds of detention are non-existent, irrelevant, stale and vague and these have no direct relevance to the security of India. It is further stated that there is no plausible nexus between the grounds and the object to be achieved and it is a case of complete non-application of mind by the defaming authority and that the detention is mala fide. It is stated that since he was briefing the defense counsel engaged for the defense of his father Sardar Kehar Singh in Smt. India Gandhi's murder case the detention was ordered with a view to prevent him from briefing the defense counsel of his father Sardar Kehar Singh. (4) We may notice that the detention in both the aforesaid cases of Rajinder Singh and Dalip Singh has been ordered with a view to prevent them from acting, in any manner, pre-indicial to the security of India and it has been clearly stated in the grounds supplied to the detenu that the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi is of the considered view that the detenu has a strong tendency towards indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of 'India and this conclusion has been drawn on the basis of the material that was placed before him. We may state that the material which resulted in the detention of the detenus was collected during the investigation of Smt. Indira Gandhi's murder case.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1665105/ 1

Gurjeet Kaur And Surjeet Kaur vs State Of Delhi And Anr. on 21 November, 1985

(5) The other detenu Dalip Singh (in Cr. W. 176185) was an employee of the Reserve Bank of India. On 1-11-84 his effects were looted and his house was burnt. He was, however, provided an alternative accommodation. According to him on 4-11-84 he was illegally detained by the police for 18 days and a statement was extracted from him under duress and torture. It is the statement to which the detenu has made a reference, which has been relied upon for his detention. According to him, A.C.P. Mr. R. P. Kochar thereafter approached him to make a similar statement before the Magistrate which he refused. The other material relied upon for his detention is mentioned in the grounds and, as already stated, the material furnished by ground No. 4 is common to both the detentions. He was also supplied the grounds of detention on 316th May 1985. Dalip Singh detenu made a representation on 28-5-85 and he received an order dated 2-6-85 to the effect that his case was placed before the Advisory Board which was of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention and that the detention order has been confirmed. On 4-6-85 he was informed that his representation dated 28-5-85 was carefully considered by the Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi and the same was rejected. On 22-7-85 the detenu wrote to the first respondent I hat the detenu was heard in person by the Advisory Board on 11 -7-85 but he was not supplied with the copy of the decision. In pursuance of this he received a letter dated 29-7-85 whereby he was informed that the Advisory Board vide its report dated 19-7-85 had again opined that there was still sufficient Cause for his detention. In this case an well, the detention has been challenged on a variety of grounds-namely, that the grounds for detention have no relation or nexus with the security of India, that it is a case of non-application of mind and the detention has been made in colourable exercise of the power and in retaliation of the refusal of the detenu to depose falsely before the Magistrate in connection with Mrs. Indira Gandhi's assassination case. It is also said that ground No. 1 is based on a statement which was extracted from him by torture and that this could not be relied upon for his detention, that the grounds are based on surmises and conjectures and arc not only irrelevant but also vague, non-existent and stale. (6) Before proceeding further and discussing the various contentions raised, we may reproduce the grounds of detention in both the cases. In the case of Rajinder Singh the grounds of detention are as under :- "1. That you arc a religious fanatic, holding extremist views, and you had been openly propagating pro Khalistan and pro-Bhindrawala views in your office, to the annoyance of your colleagues. This resulted in a complaint filed by one of' your colleagues Shri Karunakaran Pillai against your such behavior and conduct in the office i.e. the Ministry of Law, New Delhi. The matter was enquired into by Dr. S. C. Jain, Additional Legal Adviser, Ministry of Law, New Delhi who came to the conclusion that there was truth in those allegations, and he found that you had been openly advocating pro-Khalistan movement and at times had raised pro-Bhindranwale slogans also in the room. A copy of the Statement of Dr. S. C. Jain is annexed as Annexure-I. 2. That during the enquiries of the case Fir No. 241/ 84 u/s 307130211203 Indian Penal Code and 25127154-59 Arms Act of P.S. Tughlak Road (relating to the assassination of late Smt. Indira Gandhi), it has been revealed that you were very intimate with the main assassin Ex. S.I. Beant Singh (deceased) and you took both Beant Singh (deceased) and Satwant Singh to your house on 24-10-1984 after Amrit Chakhna ceremony. A copy of the statement of Shri Amrik Singh dated 1-12-1984 is enclosed at Annexure Ii in which he has stated that he had seen Rajinder Singh taking Beant Singh and Satwant Singh to his residence. 3. That you were closely in touch with Ex-S.I. Beant Singh (deceased), one of the main assassins of the late Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi with whom you had family relations. Smt. Bimla Khalsa wife of late S.I. Beant Singh had authorised you to get her passport after renewal from the Passport Office. You obtained her passport and signed in token of having received the passport. Photostat copies of the application for renewal of passport and the peon book containing your signatures are annexed as Annexures Iii and IV. 4. That on 25-2-1985, while you along with S. Dalip Singh Arshi r/o Reserve Bank of India Qr. No. 193, Sector-VI, R. K. Puram, New Delhi were going on a scooter being driven by Dalip Singh Arshi, you were stopped near Shanti Path by Shri R. P. Kochar, Asstt. Commissioner of Police, Special Investigation Team just to make quarries as to how both of you were going together. Hardly the Acp and the question, both you and Dalip Singh Arshi got enraged and threatened the A.C.P. of dire consequences that in case he did not stop investigating the roles of the Sikhs, they would wipe out the family members of the A.C.P. You also uttered that you would eliminate other high political dignitaries in the same manner in the near future (ASSI Thore Dina Which Duje Leaderan Da Khatma Kar DEVAGAIN), and your companion S. Dalip Singh Arshi uttered
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1665105/ 2

Gurjeet Kaur And Surjeet Kaur vs State Of Delhi And Anr. on 21 November, 1985

that you will give a fitting reply to the Government (SIKH Comm Sarkar Di Eat Nal Eat Waja DEGI). A copy of the report dated 25-2-1985 submitted by Shri R. P. Kochhar, A.C.P. 19 annexed as Annexure-V. (7) In the case of Dalip Singh, the grounds are as under :"1.That you are a religious fanatic holding extremist views. After the 'Blue Star Operation' in the Golden Temple, Amritsar in June, 1984. you have been actively organising Sikh Samoans and visiting Gurudwara Bangia Sahib to attend meeting where inflammatory speeches were. being given and discussions held criticising Government in generic and Smt. Indira Gandhi the then Prime Minister of India in particular. You also used to collect finds and mobilize Sikh Opinion in favor of extremist line of action for avenging the Blue-star Operation. (A copy of your statement in Annexure-I). 2. That you came in touch with Ex. S. 1. Balbir Singh posted to PM's Security (Accused), who has been charge-sheeted in the late PM's assassination case and discussed plans against the Government and particularly late Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India. 3. That you have been interfering with the investigation of the case by going to different persons and witnesses to dissuade them from speaking truth before the investigating agency and the court. Extracts from the case diaries of Shri K. P. Sharma. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Special Investigation Team regarding your interference with the investigation of the case, are being given hereunder :- 1, S. Harbhajan Singh (father of Baljeet Singh) and also the brother of Baljeet Singh stated : - "That they met S. Dalip Singh, who stated that they should not join the investigation." 2. The gather of Jagataram Singh of JJ. Colony Inder Puri, Delhi stated :- "That his son met S. Dalip Singh of R. K. Puram, New Delhi and Dalip Singh had guided his son not to join investigation and police cannot take any action against Jagataram Singh." 4 That on 25-2-1985, while you along with Shri Rajinder Singh were going on a scooter being driven by you, you were stopped near Shanti Path by Shri R. P. Kochhar, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Special. Investigation Team just to make enquiries as to how both of you were going together. Hardly the A.C.P. asked the question both you and Rajinder Singh got enraged and threatened the A.C.P. of dire consequences that in case he did not stop investigating the roles of the sikhs, they would wipe out the family members of the ACP. You also stated that you will give a fitting reply to the Government (sikh comm sarkar di eat nai eat waja degi), your companion S. Rajinder Singh Rio 573, Sector V, R. K. Puram, New Delhi uttered that you would eliminate other high political dignitaries in the same manner in the near future (Assi Thore Dina Witch Duje Leaderan Da Khatma Kar Deva gain). A copy of the report dated 25-2-85, submitted by Shri R. P. Kochhar, A.C.P. is attached as Annexure-II (8) At this stage we find it necessary to make a passing reference to the counter affidavit in so far it is relevant to the contentions raised in the petition. It has been stated that the activities of the detenus are prejudicial to the security of India. In case of Rajinder Singh it is stated that he was found during the investigation holding pro-Khalistan views and had after baptization of Satwant Singh entertained both Beaut Singh and Satwant Singh who eventually assassinated Mrs. Indira Gandhi on 31-10-1984. It is submitted that one Kehar Singh who is the step father of the detenu is also facing trial together with Satwant Singh and Balbir Singh on the charges of murder of late Mrs. Indin. Gandhi. It is also alleged that Kehar Singh has a number of sons and his real son scan as well brief his defense counsel. The counter affidavit also states that the detenu has been furnished with complete particulars of the grounds of detention within the stipulated period together with all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority. It is admitted that copy of the complaint of Shri Karunakaran Pillai made to Dr. S. C. Jain could not be supplied as the some had been misplaced and that no prejudice has been caused to the detenu by the non-supply thereof and that a copy of the statement of Dr. S. C. Jain in respect of the enquiry which he got conducted about the. conduct of the detenu was supplied to him. It is also asserted that there is complete nexus between the grounds and the object sought to be achieved by the detention of the detenu ond it has been made after due application of mind and the detention has been made bonatide after the detaining authority applied its mind to the material and arrived at an inference that the detenu had a tendency to indulge in activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State. It is further stated that the grounds are relevant and potent and are not stale. It is also stated that the purpose behind the order of detention is to prevent the detenu from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of India and the court cannot go beyond the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1665105/ 3

Gurjeet Kaur And Surjeet Kaur vs State Of Delhi And Anr. on 21 November, 1985

(9) In the counter-affidavit filed in the case of Dalip Singh it has been stated that the detention was ordered by the detaining authority after due application of mind and after arriving at a subjective satisfaction, that the detenu has a strong tendency to indulge in the activities prejudicial to the security of India and the court cannot go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. It is also said thatthe detenu joined the investigation of the assassination case of Smt. Indira Gandhi and made a statement which has been relied upon by the detaining authority and that this statement was voluntarily made by the detenu in his own hand-writing and in this statement he disclosed various activities and his association with accused in the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi. It is also urged that the detenu was found having intimate relations with Balbir Singh, one of the accused in Smt. Indira Gandhi's murder case and he had even discussed with him plans to assassinate late Prime Minister. The fact that the detenu was earlier illegally detained by the police has been denied. It is also stated that Shri R. P. Kochhar, Acp had at no stage approached the detena for making a statement before the Magisitrate. The respondents have asserted that the order is perfectly legal and all the procedural to safeguards have been duly complied with. The respondents have also further said that the grounds of detention are relevant, potent and are not stale. (10) Mr. Hardev Singh argued the case of the petitioners at great length. The first objection which he raised was in respect of counter-affidavit, which has been filed by one Shri C. P. Tripathi, Deputy Secretary (Home), Delhi Administiation, Delhi, in both the petitions. The objection is that how is it that the person signing the counter-affidavit has verified that the contents thereof are true and correct to his knowledge ? In the words of Shri Hardev Singh, Advocate, this gentleman seems to be a knowledgeable person. We do not see any reason to agree with the contention of Shri Hardev Singh. All that has been stated by Shri C. P. Tripathi, Deputy Secretary (Home) is that the contents are true and correct to his knowledge and not to his personal knowledge. This obviously is based on record. (11) The other points argued by Mr. Hardev Singh before us are that ground No. 2 in the case of Rajinder Singh detenu is based an the statement of Amrik Singh dated 8-12-84 and that it is nowhere suggested in the statement that the detenue took Beant Singh and Satwant Singh to his house after the baptisation of Satwant Singh. What is stated in the statement of Amrik Singh is that Beant Singh and Satwant Singh came to the house of the detenu. Mr. Hardev Singh, therefore, seems to urge that there seems to be complete non-application of mind and that even if it is assumed to be correct the "round is State as the detention was actually ordered on 2nd May 1985. In respect of ground No. I Mr. Hardev Singh urged that it is based on non-existent material in as much as the basis for this ground i.e. the complaint of Shri Karunakaran Pillai is not forthcoming and one is at a loss to understand what was the kind of the complaint made. He has further urged that this ground is based on the statement of Dr. S. C. Jain Additional legal Advisor which again is : dated 22nd June 1984 and has no relevance either to the impugned detention or with the security of India. In respect of "round No 3 in the case of Rajinder Singh it was again urged that it has no nexus with the security of India find in respect of ground No. 4 it has been urged that this is something concocted with a view to detain the detenue. It is also urged that this is also dated 25th February 1985 and is State and has no nexus with the security of india. (12) In the case of Dalip Singh detenu it was argued in respect of ground No. I that this is imaginary and without any basi9. In respect of ground No. 2 it is urged that it has no nexus with the security of India. Same has been stated about ground No. 3 and the argument adopted in respect of ground No. 4 is similar to that adopted in the case of Rajinder Singh detenu. It was also urged that grounds No. 1 and 2 in the case of Dalip Singh are based on a statement made by the detenu white in the illegal custody of the police and it was procured under duress. The argument, therefore, is that these grounds are irrelevant and the detention is mala fide. (13) We may at once answer the last argument by staling that we are not dealing with a criminal case and ore not in the reclaim of judging the admissibility or non-admissibility of a particular piece of evidence. After going through the statement of Dalip Singh we find certain things therein which were within his exclusive knowledge. For instance, we may point out to his coining into contact with Balbir Singh, one of the accused in
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1665105/ 4

Gurjeet Kaur And Surjeet Kaur vs State Of Delhi And Anr. on 21 November, 1985

Indira Gandhi murder case, his taking him into confidence for procuring arms and money for the purpose of liquidating a political leader namely. Smt. Indira Gandhi, the late Prime Minister of India. Also, the talk that transpired between him and his wife and the various persons he contacted in this connection and also his introducing Balbir Singh with such persons. It cannot, therefore, be said that this is an irrelevant material particularly in view of ground No. 4 where both he as well as Rajinder Singh are stated to have used some words which directly go to show the propensity and inclination of the detenus. It may be stated that Rajinder Singh had told the Acp Sh. R. P. Kochhar that "he would eliminate other high political dignitaries in the same manner in near future" and Dalip Singh had said that 'he will give fitting reply to the Government". (14) Before dealing with the remaining contentions we have to keep certain basic things in mind. Firstly, we have to examine the purpose and object of the preventive detention; secondly, we have to bear in mind the extent of jurisdiction of the court in respect of the preventive detention, thirdly, we have to bear in mind that the court is not concerned with the sufficiency or truthfulness of grounds; and forthly, it is also to be kept in view that the subjective satisfaction is that of the authority and not of the court. (15) In order to find out the purpose and object to the preventive detention we may make a reference to the case of Merugu Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. wherein the Supreme Court elaborately discussed the purpose and object of the preventive detention laws. It has been held as under :"A preventive action postulates that if preventive step is not taken the person sought to be prevented may indulge into an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. ........... The detaining authority before exercising the power of preventive detention would take into consideration the past conduct or antecedent history of the person and as a matter of fact it is largely from the prior events showing the tendencies or inclinations of' a man that an inference could be drawn whether he is likely even in the future to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. If the subjective satisfaction of the detaming authority leads to this conclusion it can put an end to the activity by making a preventive detention order." (16) Reliance in this connection may also be placed on the case of Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra and another Fair 1982 S.C. page 8)(2) wherein it has been observed :"THE past conduct or antecedent history of a person can appropriately be taken into account in making a detention order. It is indeed largely from prior events showing tendencies or inclinations of a person that an inference can be drawn whether he is likely in the future to Act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of.............." (17) This would show that detention under the National Security Act is fundamentally and essentially a precautionary measure and is based on a reasonable belief of the detaining authority regarding future conduct of the detenu though largely based on his past conduct and activity. It is not necessary that his past conduct should constitute a number of acts. It may be a single act. Considering the nature of incident that took place with Shri R.P. Kochhar and the two detenus on 25th February 1985, it is obvious that the language and utterances used by the detenus could not be ignored. From the conduct of the detenus the only proper inference that the detaining authority could draw was to find the detenus possessed of tendencies to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of India. From this incident alone, it can never be said that the detenus are not potential threat to the security of India. In fact, if the detaming authority had not taken notice of it. lie would be accused of failing to discharge ins duties. (18) Coming to the second aspect of the matter, regarding the extent of -jurisdiction of the court, we may at once point out that the jurisdiction of the court in such matters is restricted & limited to examine whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was based on no material at all or was such as no reasonable person would arrive at on the basis of material which was before the detaining authority. Reliance in this regard may be placed on State of Orissa and another v. Manilal Singhania and another . The ratio of the observations made by the Supreme Court in that case is :Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1665105/ 5

Gurjeet Kaur And Surjeet Kaur vs State Of Delhi And Anr. on 21 November, 1985

"IT will be going beyond its jurisdiction in entering upon a close and detailed scrutiny of the material before the detaining authority as it would amount to suiting in an appeal against the order. The only limited jurisdiction possessed by the court is to examine whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was based on no material at all or was such as no reasonable person would arrive at on the basis of the material which was before the detaining authority." (19) Reference in this regard may also be made to the case of Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration & ors. . The observations made by the Supreme Court are as under :"THOSE who are responsible for the national security or for the maintenance of public order must be the sole judges of what the national security or public order requires. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish man for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing. Justification for such detention is suspicion or reasonable probability and not criminal conviction which can only be warranted by legal evidence...............any preventive measures are taken by way of precaution to prevent mischief to the State. What essentially is a problem relating to law and order may due to sudden sporadic and intermittent acts of physical violence on innocent victims in the metropolitan city result in serious public disorder. It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular act or violence creating disorder that distinguishes it as an act affecting public order from that concerning law and order. ............. .The question is of the survival of the society and the problem is the method of control." (20) Adverting to the third aspect of the case regarding truthfulness and sufficiency of the grounds, we may immediately point out that the court cannot go into it. The jurisdiction of the court is limited to examine whether the subjective satisfaction arrived at was based on material. The inference drawn therefore is such which is reasonably available to the detaining authority. In the case of Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah (supra) the Supreme Court has observed :"THE High Court under Article 226 and the Supreme Court either under Article 32 or under Article 136 do not sit on appeal on the orders of preventive detention. (All that the courts can see under these Articles is) whether the formalities enjoined by Art. 22(5) have been complied with by the detaining authority. If the formalities have been complied with the court cannot examine the materials before it and find that the detaining authority should not have been satisfied on the materials before it.............. that is the function of an appellate court." (21) Again in Ajay Dixit v. State of U.P. & ors. the Supreme Court has made the following observations :"WHEN a challenge is made to a detention on the grounds that the State and irrelevant grounds were the basis for detention then the detenu is entitled to be released and to that extent the order is subject to judicial review not oa the ground of sufficiency of the grounds nor the truth of the grounds but only about the relevancy of the grounds which would come under judicial scrutiny. It is necessary in each case to examine the, facts to determine, not the sufficiency of the grounds, but nature of the grounds alleged and see whether those are relevant or not for considering whether the detention of the detenu is necessary for maintenance of public order." (22) Lastly we may also state that in. matters of preventive detention, subjective satisfaction is always that of the detaining authority and the court' cannot substitute the same with its own satisfaction. Reliance in this connection may be placed on Magan. Gope V. The State of West Bengal wherein it has been observed:"THE satisfaction spoken of in Section 3(1) which is the sine qua non to the exercise of the power is the subjective satisfaction of the authority which cannot be tested in court by objective standards. Ordinarily,
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1665105/ 6

Gurjeet Kaur And Surjeet Kaur vs State Of Delhi And Anr. on 21 November, 1985

therefore, the court cannot go behind -he satisfaction expressed on the face of the order." (23) With these parameters of court's jurisdiction in view, when we proceed to examine the contentions of Mr. Hardev Sineh which were met for the other side by Mr. B. Dutta, Addi. Solicitor General and Mr. R. M. Bagai, Advocate, we may at once point out that it is not possible to agree with Mr. Hardev Singh that the grounds are irrelevant or non-existent. It is not also possible to agree with his contention that the grounds are staid or the detention is malafide. In the case of Rajinder Singh detenu, ground No. I is based on the statement of Shri S. C. Jain dated 22-12-1984 in which he has categorically stated that in June'July 1984, Shri Karunakaran Pillai. who was a steno. came weeping and complained to him that Shri Rajinder Singh was disturbing and harassing him by discussing Khalistan movement and by raising Pro-Bhindranwale slogans and when he requested him not to disturb, he was threatened, lie has also stated that when he got the matter enquired he found it true. This was the first instance which came to the notice of the authorities and there is no reason to distrust Shri S. C. Jain who is a responsible officer. If the authorities were soft for sometime and did not touch the detenu on the basis of this single instance it only shows that they wanted to satisfy themselves about the activities of the detenu Rajinder Singh. It is true that Amrik Singh in his statement has nowhere stated that Rajinder Singh took Beant Singh and Satwant Singh to his house after the baptisation of Satwant Singh. It is, however, not disputed that Rajinder Singh and Satwant Singh did come to his house. Strictly speaking there is no blood relation between Rajinder Singh and Beant Singh. Beant Singh, in fact, hails from the village from which the mother of Rajinder Singh hails. This would show that he had association with both Beant Singh. ana Satwant Singh and this was discovered during the course of investigation Truthfulness of ground No. 3 is not disputed. The only contention is that it is irrelevant. We do not agree. It is bound to be characterised as irrelevant if looked into in isolation but, once it is viewed in the totality of the activities it does become relevant. In respect of ground No. 4 we may point out in the case of both the detenus that this report of the A.C.P. Shri R. P. Kochhar is dated 25th February 1985. The fact that Rajinder Singh along with Dalip Singh was going on scooter on a particular day is not disputed. Ail that is in dispute is their confrontation with Shri R. P. Kochhar. We find no reason for Mr. Kochhar to make such a report in the month of February 1985 particularly in view of the fact that detention was actually ordered on 2nd of May 1985. (24) The warning issued by the detenus to Shri R. P. Kochhar is such which cannot be ignored and it only goes to show the inclination and the conduct of the detenus. Takina; all these grounds together it was natural for the detaining authority to come to the conclusion that their activities are prejudicial to the security of India. Apparently, on the basis of this material he could not draw any other inference than the one that the detenus are also extremists and are a part of a larger set up determined to liquidate: the political leadership of the country and dismember the country. As long as the terrorist activities do not cease, grounds do not become stale. (25) Tn the case of Dalip Singh detenu we have already made a mention of the fact that apart from the fact that ground No. 4 is common to both the detenus the grounds I to 3 in his case are based on his own statement which is in his own hand-writing. We have already indicated that the statement is relevant particularly in view of the fact that it contains narration of most of the activities of the detenu which were within his exclusive knowledge He does not dispute his association with Balbir Singh, who is also a co-conspirator facing murder charge in the assassination case of late Prime Minister. It is perhaps for this reason that he was trying to, dissuade the witnesses in that case from speaking the truth. The evidence collected in this connection is mentioned in ground No. 3. (26) Having said so, we are yet concerned with two important contentions raised by Shri Hardev Singh. The first one in the series is his contention that by refusing to supply to Rajinder Singh a copy to the complaint of Shri Karunakaran Pillai, the detenu was deprived of making an effective and purposeful representation. Before we say something, a reference may be made to the case of Thakor Mulchandani v. Assistant Secretary to the Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors. . The ratio of the observations made by the Supreme

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1665105/

Gurjeet Kaur And Surjeet Kaur vs State Of Delhi And Anr. on 21 November, 1985

Court is as under:- A document relied on in the grounds of detention is a material document and its non-supply to the detenu would render the detention void as in that event he may not make an effective representation against the order of detention. (27) Reference may also be made to Mst. L. M. S. Ummu Saleema v.B. B. Gujaral and another . In this case the observations made by the Supreme Court are as follows:- Where the detenu under S. 3(1) of the Act was not furnished with copies of the documents to which only casual or passing reference was made in course of narration of facts but which were not relied upon by the detaining authority while making the order of detention it could not be said that the detenu was prevented from making an effective representation and consequently right guaranteed by Art. 22(2) was violated." (28) In the present case even though a inference has been made to the complaint of Shri Karunakaran Pillai in the course of narration of facts by the detaining authority, it is obvious that this complaint of Shri Pillai was never put up before the detaining authority and this was not the document which was relied upon. In fact what was relied upon was the statement made by Dr. S. C. Jain in pursuance of the enquiry he got conducted into the conduct of Shri Rajinder Single It is indeed true that this document was demanded by the detenu. But it would be seen that the detaining authority was not possessed of this document and was not in a position to supply the same as the document had been misplaced and, despite efforts was nut available. In view of the statement of Dr. S. C. Jain, who is a high officer, it cannot be said that this complaint was a 511 mere myth and that no such complaint was made. On this basis therefore it cannot be said that the detaming authority has not applied its mind by not seeing the complaint. In any case this was not the document relied upon and since the stress is on the words "relied upon" it is clear that the detaining authority was under no obligation to furnish every document to which reference is made in the grounds of detention and it does not render detention invalid. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no basis for the belief that the detenu Rajinder Singh by failure of the detaming authority to supply a copy of this complaint, has in any way been deprived of making an effective and purposeful representation. (29) Lastly, we would fake up for consideration the contention of Mr. Hardev Singh that the grounds of detention in both these cases are sfa.te and have no proximity and nexus with the security of the State. We may at once point out that the relevance of the material in both these detention matters lies in the fact that in view of the prevailing climate in the country and the nature of the activities and association of the detenus it was only normal for the detaining authority to infer that the detenus are a part of a bigger subversive set up secretly carrying on its activities. Their association with persons who are responsible for conspiracy and assassination of late Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi is a matter which could not be ignored. One has to keep in view that these facts came to the light one by one during the course of investigation of that case, the last being the encounter with Mr. R. P. Kochhar A.C.P. on 25th February, 1985. It is a matter of common knowledge that it does assume summering to assemble all these events. The process of detention was initiated on 28th March 1985 i.e. a little more than one month after the last incident, as mentioned in ground No. 4. Whether subjective satisfaction has been reasonably arrived at after due application of mind will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Could in the present case, considering the nature of the warnings issued by the detenus to Shri R. P. Kochhar it be said that the detenus are not part of a larger set up having the tendency to indulge in the activities prejudicial to the security of India. In fact, the inferences drawn by the detaining authority are not without justification. We may also point out that the grounds for detention in view of the prevailing climate of the country cannot be brushed aside as State and having no proximity with the security of the country. In this regard we may make a reference to the case of Gora v. State of West Bengal . The observations made arc us under:-

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1665105/

Gurjeet Kaur And Surjeet Kaur vs State Of Delhi And Anr. on 21 November, 1985

"THE test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test to be blindly applied by merely counting the number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. It is a subsidiary test evolved by the court for the purpose of determining the main question whether the past activities of the detenu is such that from it a reasonable prognosis can be made as to the future conduct of the detenu and its utility, therefore, lies only in so far as it subserves that purpose and it cannot be allowed to dominate or drown it. The prejudicial act of the detenu may in a given case be of such a character as to suggest that it is a part of an organized operation of a complex of agencies collaborating to clandestinely and secretly carry on such activities and in such a case the detaining authority may reasonably feel satisfied that the prejudicial act of the detenu which has.S come to light cannot be a. solitary or isolated act but must be part of a course of conduct of such or similar activities clandestinely or secretly carried on by the detenu and it is, therefore, necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from indulging in such activities in the future." (30) These observations of the Supreme Court clinch the issue and looking at the case of the detenus from the point of view of the prevailing climate, it cannot be said that the grounds are either State or have no proximity or nexus with the security of India. Once the proposition that preventive detentions are. based on the past conduct and are meant to intercept their probable future conduct is accepted, there is hardly any scope for the assertion that the grounds based on the past conduct of the detenus are stale. The grounds based on the past conduct can only be characterised as State if the threat to the security has ceased. What is relevant, is not the independent acts of the detenus but the belief of the detaining authority flowing out of the past conduct of the detenus that they are likely to indulge in a conduct and activity which will endanger the security of India. No other contention was raised. We are., therefore, of the view that these detentions have validly been made. If is not denied that the procedural safeguards available to the detenus were complied with in time. With these observations the petitions are dismissed.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1665105/