Basi Singh vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 3 April, 1981 Equivalent citations: 1982 CriLJ 229
Facts of the case:
Petitioner was arrested on the suspicion that he is having close alliance with PREPAK and UPLASS which are separatist organisations aimed to separate 7 North East states from Union of India.
The Central Government in exercise of its power under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, hereinafter referred as “the Act”, declared the Revolutionary People’s Front (formerly known as the Armed Revolutionary Government of Manipur), in short styled as “RPF”, the People’s Liberation Army, People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak, shortly described as “PREPAK” and the Red Army, all belonging to the Meitei Extremists Organisation and other Bodies set up by them including the Armed Forces, named above, were “unlawful associations”.
Secession from India is one of the objectives of the “PREPAK”.
Every member associated with these organisation was declared as separatist by the Central Government.
Legal interpretations:
1) If no charge sheet is filed by the police within 90 days, then on the expiry of 90 days from such arrest/ detention, the Court may grant the bail to such arrested person/ detainee.
2) Detainee arrested under the preventive detention laws is having right to know the grounds of his detention and also such detainee is having right to make a representation before special Court/ Tribunal/ Advisory Board for his/her release.
3) “The exercise of the power of detention is dependant on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authorities with a view to preventing a person from acting in a prejudicial manner as set forth in the laws of detention.” – Justice Bhagwati, in Khudiram v. State of West Bengal at Supreme Court.
4) “In preventive detention law, the expression “if satisfied” is indicative of the fact that the act of detention is based on “subjective satisfaction” of the detaining authority before an order of detention can be made.” – Supreme Court in Khudiram v. State of West Bengal.
5) The power of detention is nothing but a preventive measure and does not partake the nature of punishment. The measure is taken by way of precaution to prevent mischief to the community and/or the State. Every preventive measure is based on the principle that a person should be prevented from doing something which, if left free and unfettered, it is reasonably probable he would do. It must necessarily proceed in all cases more or less on suspicion or anticipation as distinct from “proof”.
6) The subjective opinion must be formed by the detaining authority as regards the necessity of detention. The power of detention is not a quasi-judicial power. Therefore, while reviewing the grounds for detention which are the foundation of the order of detention, Court must consider that the exercise of power is purely an administrative action. It would be wrong to equate the power with quasi-judicial power.
7) While considering the acts and actions or the activities it is necessary to consider the nature and character of the activities of the activists.
8) A public disorder by way of overt actions is almost always done openly and in the view of the world. Whereas unlawful activities of the unlawful organisations are always done in “a hush hush manner”, secretively; the activities have a clear tendency of hoodwinking others including the law men. No secret activities are done openly.
9) The security of the country is not the exclusive preserve of the members of the Armed Forces. It is the prime duty and obligation of each individual Indian. It is the obligation of the three organs of the State to look after the security of the country arid/or its defence. – Justice D Pathak in Guahati High Court in 1980.
10) In war you known the enemy and they attack from outside, but when the enemy agents, agents provocateurs manage to infiltrate and eat up the Indianness of the Indians, make them anti-Indians, sabotage the values enshrined in the Constitution, they are the most dangerous enemies. – Justice D Pathak in Guahati High Court in 1980.
11) Amidst the clash of arms, the laws are not silent, they may be changed, but they speak the same language in war and peace, reverberated in their ears. – Lord Atkin in Liversidge v. Anderson, 1942 AC 206
12) Where freedom is in peril and justice is threatened all citizens shall receive the fullest protection from the Court within the four corners of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and the safeguards provided in the Ordinance benignantly stretched and liberally interpreted, within the legitimate limit.
13) If Advisory Board gives mentions its report as “Confidential” in any case of preventive detention then such confidential report of the Advisory Board can not be reviewed by the Court as Court is not having any jurisdiction to review the Confidential Report of the Advisory Board in any preventive detention case.
14) The main object of the laws of preventive detention is to prevent a free man from acting in a prejudicial manner and there must be satisfaction of the detaining authority that if such a person is not detained he would act in a prejudicial manner. It postulates that the persons sought to be detained must have freedom of action at the time of making the order.
15) If orders of preventive detention are passed for a person who is in jail, and it is served to such arrested person when he is in jail, then such order is bad in the eyes of law.