# HAR JAS DEV SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

- **Citation:** [1974] 1 S.C.R. 281
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-07-25
- **Bench:** P. ]Aganmohan Reddy, H. R. Khanna, V. R. Krishna !Yer
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/har-jas-dev-singh-v-state-of-punjab-ors-5968
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Maintetiancc of Internal Security Act, (26 of 1911)-Section 14(2)-Fresh
facts, .what are-Order of detention served while in confinement under Of}7cial
Secrets A ct-Order subsequently revoked-Thereafter released on hail-Second
order of detention on identical grounds-If release on bail and varia1ion in thl
enumeration oj prejudicial acts amount to fresh facts.
\\'hile the petitioner was in confinement under section 3 of the Official Secrets
Act, 1923. an order of detention, made under section 3 of the
Mo.1int1!nance
of
InternaJ Securit\ Act. 1971. was served on him.
The order expir~J since ·that
was not approved by the State
government.
Thereafter
the
petitioner was
released on bail.
Aft~r his release on bail a fresh order of detention was passed.
The detention was approved by the Advisory Board and the State Government
confirmed the order.
The grounds of detention served on the ·petitioner were identical
with
the
grounds on which lhe first order of .detention \Vas based except that ground No.
7 stated that since the petitioner waS released on bail he was likdy to continue
his spying activities which would be highly prejudicial to the security of the State.
Another difference was that in the first order of detention "Security of the State"
and maintenance of Pubiic Order w.::re mentioned bu. in the seconJ order only
"isecurity of the State" was mentioned.
The petitioner urged that since the grounds which formed the basis of the
fiist order of detention were identical with the grounds for d taining him under
the subsequent order. the latter order was bad and his detention was illegal. The
respond nt·State contended that since the petitioner was in jail at th_ time when
the first order was served on him and revoked, his subsequ n·
rel:-ase on bail
constituted a fresh fact.
It was further urged on behalf of the State
that the
Act made a distinction between grounds and facts and that while grounds niust
have a nexus with the object of the order of detention facts stated therein need
not necessarily have that nexus.
On the question whether the two variations from the first order of detention
can be construed as "fresh facts" justifying the Lmpurmed dc:=tention within the
meaning of section 14(2) of the Act. [289E]
HELD : There being no fresh facts on which the impugned detention order
i! made the order is invalid and the detention of the petitioner cannot be sustained.
( i) After the date on which the order ceased to be in force, unless fresh facts
had ansen on the basis of which the Central Government or the State Governmc:=nt or an Officer, as the case may be, was satisfied that such an order should be
made the subsequent detention on the very same grounds would be invalid.
[287C]
Masood v. Union, W.P. Nos. 469 & 470 of 1972 decided Jan. II, 1973; Hadt
Bardu Das v. District Magistrate [1969] 1 S. C.R. 227 referred to.
(ii) While it is true that 'grounds' and "facts" are used in opposition to ea::h
other they must be taken as ref~rring to two different things.
The grounds are
concl~s1ons ot fact or reasons which have induced the detailing authority to pass
the order of detention.
These are sometimes referred to as basic facts.
Facts,
however, constitute the evidence upon which the conclusion~ justifying the deten ..
tion are made. [288B]
State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Vaidya (1951] S.C.R. 157; Ram Krisluzn v.
State of Delhi [19531 S.C.R. 708 referred to.
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1974] 1 S.C.R.
.
!h.ere may be f<~cts which are not germane or are not relevant to the grounds
1ust1fy1ng the detention and when section 14 refers to "fresh facts" it does not
refer to facts which are not relevant but or such fresh facts on which the detain~
ing authority is satisfied that an order 01 detention should be. made.
1£ the fresh
facts cannot form the basis of a conclusion on which the detention order can be
made, then those facts are not fresh facts
which will
justify
the
de.aining
authority _to make an order of detention.
A fresh order of deten

## Text

A
c
D
E
F
G
H
281
HAR JAS DEV SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
July 25, 1973
[P. ]AGANMOHAN REDDY, H. R. KHANNA & V. R. KRISHNA !YER, JJ.]
Maintetiancc of Internal Security Act, (26 of 1911)-Section 14(2)-Fresh
facts, .what are-Order of detention served while in confinement under Of}7cial
Secrets A ct-Order subsequently revoked-Thereafter released on hail-Second
order of detention on identical grounds-If release on bail and varia1ion in thl
enumeration oj prejudicial acts amount to fresh facts.
\\'hile the petitioner was in confinement under section 3 of the Official Secrets
Act, 1923. an order of detention, made under section 3 of the
Mo.1int1!nance
of
InternaJ Securit\ Act. 1971. was served on him.
The order expir~J since ·that
was not approved by the State
government.
Thereafter
the
petitioner was
released on bail.
Aft~r his release on bail a fresh order of detention was passed.
The detention was approved by the Advisory Board and the State Government
confirmed the order.
The grounds of detention served on the ·petitioner were identical
with
the
grounds on which lhe first order of .detention \Vas based except that ground No.
7 stated that since the petitioner waS released on bail he was likdy to continue
his spying activities which would be highly prejudicial to the security of the State.
Another difference was that in the first order of detention "Security of the State"
and maintenance of Pubiic Order w.::re mentioned bu. in the seconJ order only
"isecurity of the State" was mentioned.
The petitioner urged that since the grounds which formed the basis of the
fiist order of detention were identical with the grounds for d taining him under
the subsequent order. the latter order was bad and his detention was illegal. The
respond nt·State contended that since the petitioner was in jail at th_ time when
the first order was served on him and revoked, his subsequ n·
rel:-ase on bail
constituted a fresh fact.
It was further urged on behalf of the State
that the
Act made a distinction between grounds and facts and that while grounds niust
have a nexus with the object of the order of detention facts stated therein need
not necessarily have that nexus.
On the question whether the two variations from the first order of detention
can be construed as "fresh facts" justifying the Lmpurmed dc:=tention within the
meaning of section 14(2) of the Act. [289E]
HELD : There being no fresh facts on which the impugned detention order
i! made the order is invalid and the detention of the petitioner cannot be sustained.
( i) After the date on which the order ceased to be in force, unless fresh facts
had ansen on the basis of which the Central Government or the State Governmc:=nt or an Officer, as the case may be, was satisfied that such an order should be
made the subsequent detention on the very same grounds would be invalid.
[287C]
Masood v. Union, W.P. Nos. 469 & 470 of 1972 decided Jan. II, 1973; Hadt
Bardu Das v. District Magistrate [1969] 1 S. C.R. 227 referred to.
(ii) While it is true that 'grounds' and "facts" are used in opposition to ea::h
other they must be taken as ref~rring to two different things.
The grounds are
concl~s1ons ot fact or reasons which have induced the detailing authority to pass
the order of detention.
These are sometimes referred to as basic facts.
Facts,
however, constitute the evidence upon which the conclusion~ justifying the deten ..
tion are made. [288B]
State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Vaidya (1951] S.C.R. 157; Ram Krisluzn v.
State of Delhi [19531 S.C.R. 708 referred to.
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1974] 1 S.C.R.
.
!h.ere may be f<~cts which are not germane or are not relevant to the grounds
1ust1fy1ng the detention and when section 14 refers to "fresh facts" it does not
refer to facts which are not relevant but or such fresh facts on which the detain~
ing authority is satisfied that an order 01 detention should be. made.
1£ the fresh
facts cannot form the basis of a conclusion on which the detention order can be
made, then those facts are not fresh facts
which will
justify
the
de.aining
authority _to make an order of detention.
A fresh order of detention can only
be made 1f fresh grounds came into existence after the expiry or revocation of
the earlier order of detention. No fresh order could be made on the
ground
which existed prior to the revocation or expiry of an earlier order of detention.
Parliament has enacted section 14 in order tc prevent such a coating ncy.
[288E]
Massod v. Union of India W.P. Nos. 469 & 470 of 1972 decided on Jan. 11,
1973.
(iii) The release of th .... detenu on bail does not constitute fresh
facts as
would justify the impugned detention order.
Both the
detention
orders
are
passed under s. 13(l)(a)(ii) which set out the prejudicial acts under which the
suspected actions of the detenu will fall and for which the detention
is
made.
It 1s immaterial _whether the detaining authority is satisfied that the grounds on
which the deterition is being made for preventing the detenu from acting in any
manner prejudicial to the security of the State or th~ maint nance of public
order or for preventing him from acting in any manner preju':!icial t') the secu·
rity of the State alone, because, in either case, one of the objects is to prevent
the det nu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the 1;tate. The
variation in the enumeration of prejudicial acts has nothing to do· with fresh facts.
[289B]
'ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 93 of 1973.
Under Article 32 of the Const'tntion of India for issue of a writ in
the nature of habeas corpus.
R. K. lain. for the petitioner.
A
B
c
D
Harbans Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos. 1 to 4
&7.
E
The following Judgment of the Court was de'ivered by
JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.-The petitioner challenges the order of
detention dated March, 28, 1972 made under s. 3 of the Maintenance
of Internal Security Act No. 26 of 1971-hereinafter called 'the Actl.
Initially he was arrested under the Official Secrets Act, 19 of 1923, and
was remanded hy the Magistrate on October 24. 1971.
On NovemF
ber 19, 1971, the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur made an order of
detention under s. 3 of the Act which was served on the· petitioner
while he was still in confinement under s. 3 of the Official Secrets Act.
He was also served with the grounds of the detention.
The Order of
the District Magistrate, however, was not approved by the State Government and the petitioner was directed to he released in respect of his
G.
detention under the Act.
The petitioner thereafter moved the Sessions
Judge for bail and was directed on March 2, 1972 to be relea~ed on
his executing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/-. The bail bond furnished
by him was accepted by the Sessions Court on March 14, 1972, on
which date of the petitioner was released frolll iail.
On March 28,
1972, a fresh order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate,
Gurciaspur, which order was approved hv the State Government on
Aoril 4. 1972.
It is alleged that from March 14, 1972 to February
H
12. 1973 the petitioner did not appear before the Court in spite of repeated directions and undertakings given by his counsel.
His application for exemption from appearance was refused and thereafter on
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
HAR JAS DEV v. PUNJAB (laganmohan Reddy, J.)
283
August 17, 1972 an application was made for taking action against
him under s. 7 of the Act. On February 6, 1973 the detenu was declared a proclaimed offender.
On March 12. 1973 he was arrested
in Delhi and produced before a Delhi Magistrate who granted a transit
remand for being produced before the Court at Batala and W'lS accordingly produced before him on March 14, 1973. On March 15, 1973,
the detention order dated March 28, 1972, was served on him.
Representations made by him were rejected by the Government on April
10, 1973, and finally on April 30, 1973, his .detention was approved by
the Advisory Board. The State Government confirmed the order of
detention.
The contentions urged before us are better appreciated by a perusal
of the grounds of detention.
There are :
·
"1. That you, Harjasdev Singh s/o Ujagar Singh, Jat r/o
village Talwara, p/s Srihargobindpur born on
15-4-41
in
village Talwara matriculated in 1962 joined Military Service
on 28-8-63 as Sepoy Clerk and later proomted as Havaldar
Clerk in November, 1968 are Indian National.
Tn
Feb ..
1967 when you were transferred to 10th Infantry Div. Hq
at Suianpur and remained there till Julv, 1970. During this
period, you, Harjasdev Singh have been collecting information regarding military units and conveying the Same to Pak
InteWgence Services.
In return. you were suitably rewqrded bv the Pakistan officers and in support of this, the following facts have been duly proved against you :-
(i) That during Oct., 1969, one Pritam Singh Jat r/o
Baleem p/s Kalanaur allured you to indulge in espionage
activities against India and give him Military. intelligence and
secret documents for passing on the same to his Pak masters
for which you would be paid handsomely.
You felt tempted and gave your consent to do the job.
Pritam Singh gave
you Rs. 60/- and promised to come after a week.
Pritam
Singh again met you after about a week and you handed over
to him a typed list of units uder 10th Infantry Div. with their
locations.
You were paid Rs. 100/- more by Pritam Singh
for this Job.
(ii) Again in the Month of Nov., 1969, the abovesaid
Pritam '>ingh, contacted you at Suianpur
~nd paid you
Rs. 100/- as your remuneration for supplying the list of
staff officers at 10th Infantry Div. HQ at Sujanpur and also
one Sketch on tracing paper regarding Road routes from
Pathankot to Akhnoor.
(iii) Again in the month Dec .. 1969. you supplied 10th
Infantry Div. Exercise papers to Pritam Singh who promised to compensate you for this after receiving payment from
his Pak masters.
(iv) That in Nov., 1970 when you were posted in 'A'
bran~h HQ 67 Independent Tnfantrv Brigade Company at
Abohar, you were discharged from the Army due to your
bad record.
284
SUPREME COU1lT l'-EPORTS
[ 1974] 1 s.c.tt.
"2. That during May /June, 1971 Pritam Singh who was
on one month leave from the 26th Battalion to Shukargarh,
Dist!. Sialkot (Pakistan) and produced you
before ,\lajor
Akhtar and Sub. Zafar there.
You
along
with
Pritam
Singh crossed the border from the left side of Indian
Picket
Bohar Wadala onward by the side of Dhussi band and reached Pak Picket Takhatpur, wherefrom you were taken to Pak
Security Office, Shakargarh in a Jeep by Sub. Zafar.
There
Major Akhtar and Sub. Zafar talked with you in seclus;on.
You gave out all the details of 10th infantry Div.
to
your
knowledge to the Major.
Your particulars were noted down
on a printed form which was got signed by you and you were
also got photographed.
You passed on the following documents
and
Military Intelligence to the Pak Security
Officers:-
(i) Deployment statement of the Units under 25 Div.
and other connected with units other than those under
25
Div.
(ii) There was no movement of the Army Umts in
Dera Baba Nanak and Gurdaspur areas at that time.
The Major gave you Rs. 200/- as your remuneration
and assigned you following task :-
( i) To collect information about the postings and trainings of the Officers under IO Infantry Div.
(ii) To. collect any secret or top secret documents from
A
B
c
D
any army Officer.
E
. (iii) To collect any pamphlet about the Army trammg
or containing technical number of the Indian Army Units.
Both you and Pritam Singh thereafter crossed over to
India via the same route.
3. In the month of Sept., 1971 you alone crossed the
Border via the same old route and met Major Akhtar and
F
Sub. Zafar at Shakargarh and furnhhed the following documents and Military information to them :-
(i) Ammunition scale of the units under
10 Infantry
Div.
(ii) One Pamphlet about the technical numbers of the
Army Divisioas, Brigades and units of Indian Army.
(iii) About postin'g of Major General Jaswant Singh
as 10 Inf. Div. Commander. t. '·
\~,
(iv) About movement of No. 10 Inf. Div. HQ from its
previous headquarter at Sujanpur to the left side of the Dalhousie Road near Pathankot in the newly constructed barracks.
You were paid Rs. 200/- for this service and further
allotted the following task :-
G
H -
A
HAR JAS DEV v. PUNJAB (laganmohan .heddy, l.)
285
(i) To collect information about the construction work
of Railway line from Pathankot to Jammu via Kathua.
(ii) 1300 MM gun supplied by Russia with which of the
Indian Army and the location of that Unit.
B
(iii) Location of 4 House Units.
c
0
E
F
G
!I
(iv) To collect Army new or old Photo of any VJ.P.
about his visit at 10 Inf. Div. HQ or any unit under the Div.
You were then made to cross to India with a Pak national
named Akhtar who was appointed a courier for
collecting
documents and military intellegcnce from you.
4. That you' along with Akhtar reached Pathankot.
Akhtar stayed there while you left for your village.
After
two days, you returned to Pathankot and gave Akhtar the
following docnments to be delivered to your Pak masters.
(i) Three photos of Sh. Swaran Singh the then Detence
Minister of V.I.P. visits in Akhnoor sector in 3 different
poses with G.0.C. 10th inf. Div.
(ii) Location statement of the units under 26 Inf. Div.
and connected units.
(iii) Two sketches on tracing papers of obstacle plan of
Akhnoor Sector-part I and part II.
(iv) 4 House unit moved from Patiala to Madhopur
area.
5. That on 23-10-71 you were arrested by the
local
police of p/s Srihargobindpur from your house in case FIR
No. 178 u/s 30 S. Act.
On search of you~ house, the fol,
lowing documents in connection with your activities prejudidical to the Security of State were recovered :-
(i) A list typed in English of
Officers ACRS to be
reviewed by the Brigade Commander.
(ii) One white paper i.e.
printed letter pad of HQ
Ambala Sub Area, Ambala Cantt. with formation sign of
the Sub Area units.
(iii) A rough sketch about the road from Batala Dera
Baba Nanak-Kalanaur towards village Pakiwan
showing
some villages prepared by you to go to and· from Pakistan in
connection with your espionage activities,
incriminating
documents, along with other papers.
6. That on interrogation you have been found to be a
pak Spy.
7. That in case FIR No. 178 referred to in Para 5
above, you have been released on bail by the District and
Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur and it is new likely that you will
continue your spying activities for the Pakistan Intelligence
services or by crossing over to Pakistan, you are likely to
divulge intelligence collected by you about our National vital
286
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974 j 1 S.C.R.
installations, Military formations and Civil Defence forces,
to Pak authorities which would be highly prejudicial to the
security of the State in these days of Pak hostilities.
It was first contended that as no return was filed by the State
Government, the petitioner is entitled to be set at liberty under r. 5 of
0. XXXV of the Supreme Court Rules; secor1<1ly, there is no nexus
between the obje1;t of the order of detention and the grounds of deten·
tion; thirdly, a perusal of the grounds of detention will disclose that
the order is really made under s. 3( 1) (a)(i) of the Act and not under
s. 3(1) (a) (ii) under which it is purported to be made, inasmuch as
the acts alleged against the detenu would justify an order being made
to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the Defence
of India and cannot justify an order against him from acting in any
manner prejudical to the Security of the State or the maintenance of
public order.
Finally, it was urged that since the grounds which formed the basis of the order of detention served on him on November 19,
1971 (hereinafter referred to as the first order) are identical with the
grounds for detaining him under the impugned order, the impugned
order is bad and his detention illegal.
Taking the last point first it is not disputed except for ground No.
7, that the grounds of detention first served on the petitioner on November 19, 1971 are identical with the grounds on which the impugned
order of detention is made.
There is, however, another minor difference between the two orders in that though the grounds mentioned in
both the orders set out that the petitioner has been detained under
s. 3(1)(a)(ii) the grounds in the first order state that the detention of
the petitioner was to prevent him from indulging in any manner prejudicial ·to the security of the State or maintenance oi public order;
while the grounds in the impugned order merely state that it was to
prevent the petitioner from acting in ·any manner prejudicial to the
security of the state only.
The question is, whether these two variations from the first order can be construed as 'fresh facts' justifying the
impugned detention within the meaning of s. 14(2) of the Act wherein It is provded;
"The revocation or expiry of a detention order shall not
bar the making of a fresh detention order under section 3
against the same person in any case where fresh facts have
.arisen after the date of revocation or expiry on which the
Central Government or a State Government or an officer, as
the case may be, is satisfied that such an order should be
made."
There is no doubt that since the first order of detention dated November 19, 1971 was not approved by the State Government that Order or
detention ceased to have force after 12 days from the date of the Order
and that detention order had therefore expired on December I, 1971.
Even if the first order was revoked due to a technical defect the same
result follows.
In Hadi Bandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack &
Anr.( 1) it was urged on the analogous provisions of the Preventive
(!) [1969] I S. C.R. 227
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
HAR JAS DEV v. PUNJAB (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.)
287
Detention Act 4 of 1950 that a detaining authority may issue a fresh
on.Jee 111Ler revoca,ion ot an earlier order ot detention if the previous.
order was defective in point of form or had become unenforccaole in
consequence of a failure to comply with the statutory provisions of the
Act.
Negativing this contention the Court observed at PP· 233-234 :
"there is nothing in s. 13(2) .which indicates that .the. expressi?n
"revocation" means only revocation of an' order which t~ otherwise
valid and
operative : apparently
it includes
cancellat10n
of all
orders-invalid as well as valid"
In these circumstances after the·
date on which the order ceased to be in force, unless fresh facts had
arisen on the basis of which the Central Government or a State Government or an officer. as the case may be, was satisfied that such an
order should be made, the subsequent detention on the very
same
grounds would be invalid. This Court has in Masood Alam etc. v.
Union of Jmiia & Others(I) has so held. In that case the detenu was
arrested on June 15, 1972 pursuant to an order of detention dated
June 14, 1972 made by the District Magistrate under s. (l)(a)(i)
and (ii) of the Act.
The Government in that case also did not accord its approval for the petitioner's detention as required by s. 3 (3)
of the Act and an order of release was made and served on the detenu
who was confined in jail as an under-trial under s. 107/117 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
A fresh order of detention was again
passed on the same day, namely, June 25, 1972 the· grounds 0{ which
were identical.
Several contentions were urged before this Court, but
that which found favour with it was that the earlier order of detention
was either revoked or had expired with the result that unless the
detention pursuant to the Order dated June 25 1972 is passed on
fresh facts arising after the expiry or revocation' of the earlier order,
i! must be held to be invalid, in support of this conclusion two decisions of this Court in Hadi Bandhu Das v. District
Ma~istrate,
Cuttack( 2 )
~eferred' to
earlier, and Kshetra
Gogoi v. State
oj
Assam(') decided under s. 13(2) of the Preventive Detention Act
(IV of 1950) which is identical with s. 14(2) of the Act were
referred to.
The !eart?e~ A~vocate for the respondent-State has made slrenuollll
attempt ,o d1stin~1sh Masood Alam's (1) case firstly, on the ground
that smce t~e pellt10ner was in jail at the time when the first order was
se.rved on h!m and revoked, his subsequent release on bail by the Disfnct & Ses~1ons Judge, Gurdaspur. constituted a fresh fact. as his re-
~ase was h~ely to enable the petitioner to continue his soyina activiU~s for Paktst~n ln!elligence Service or to cross over to Pakistan for
~1vulgm~ .the mtelhg~nce collected bv him concerning vital
installat~o!'s, M~htary formations and Civ;J Defence Forces to Pakistan auth<>-
nt1es which would be highly prejudicial to the security of the State The
argument of the pe.titioner's Advocate that fresh fact or facts mu~! be
s.uch as would provide a nexus between the object of the order of detention and the grounds of detention, was sought to be controverted by
the State on the ground that the Act made a difference between the
l!~ffounds and facts which are two different
connotations conveving
di erent concepts. It was urged that while ground must have a nex~
(ll W.P.S. N~s. 469 & 470
of 1972 d•cided on
January II, 1973.
(2) '1%91 IS-OR 2?:7
(3) [I970] 2 SCR Sl'T
288
SUPllMll COURT REPORTS
[ 1974 J 1 S.C.lt.
with the object of the order of detention, facts stated therein need not
11ecessarily have that nexus.
We find it difficult to accept this distinct!on.
While it is true that in s. 8 of the Act as also in its other provisions ground and facts are used in opposition to eacl. other, they must
be taken as referring to two differen• things.
The grounds are conclusions of fact or reasons which have induced the detaining authority
to pass the order of detention.
Sometimes these are referred to as
\>asic facts.
Facts, however, constitute the evidence upon which
the
conclusions justifying the detention are made.
In State of
Bombay
l'. A 1ma Ram Sridhar Vaidya (1), it was observed-" By their very
nature the grounds are conclusions of facts and not a complete detailed recital of all the flcts.
The conclnsions drawn from ihe available facts will show in which of the three categories of prejudicial acts
the suspected activity of the particular person is considered
to fall.
These conclusions are the "grou:ids" and they must be supplied.
No
part of such "grounds" can be held back nor can any more "grounds"
be added thereto. What must be supplied are the "grounds" on which
the o:der has been made and "nothing less." The detenu,
however,
is not entitled to know the evidence, nor the source of the information,
but he must be furnished with sufficient particulars or facts i.e. sufficient details to enable him to make out a case if he can. for the conslderation of the detaining authority. Also see Ram Krishan v. State of
Delhit2).
There may be facts which are not germane or are not relevant to
the grounds justifying the detention and when s. 14 refers . to fresh
facts it does not refer to facts which are not relevant, but tb such fresh
facts on which the detaining authority is satisfied that an order of
detention should be made.
If the fresh facts cannot form the basis for
a conclusion on which the detention order can be made, then those
facts a•e not fresh facts which will justify the detaining authority to
make an order of detention.
If the contention of the learned Advocate for the State that the release on bail of the petitioner by the District & Sessions Judge, constitutes fresh facts which would furnish an
opportunity to the detenu to act in a manner prejudical to the security
of the State or the maintenance of public order, then the same argument can be availed of for any subsequent detention on the same facts
and grounds after the detenu has been rele3Sed on the expirv of the
period for which he was detained or after the earlier order of detention
has been revoked, because in both the cases. namely, where the Government has refused to confirm the order of detention as well as on the
expir~ of the period for which the detenu has been detained Hnd the
detention order has expired, the likelihood of the detenu continuing
to act in any manner prejudicial to the securitv of the State etc. can be
said to exist and those would furnish a cause for making a fresh detention order.
A fresh order of detention can only be made if fresh
gounds come into existence, after the expiry of revocation of the
earlier order of detention.
No such fresh order could be made on the
ground which existed prior to the revocation or expiry ?f the earl!er
order of detention.
In order to prevent such a contmgencv Parliament has enacted s. 14 of the Act and this Court dealing with such a
con1i~~e,ncy in Masood Alam's (snpra) case already referred to obsened.:
11) ]1951) S. C.R. !67 at 17R.
(2) [1953] S. C.R. 708.
A
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
A
B
E
HAR JAS DEV v. PUNJAB (/aganmohan Reddy, /.)
289
"It is to effectuate this restriction on the maximum period and to ensure
that it is not rendered nugatory or ineffective by resorting to the
camoulfiage of making a fresh order operative soon after the expiry of
the period of detention, a>; also to minimise resort to detention orders
that s. 14 restricts the detention of a person on given set of facts to the
original order and does not permit a fresh order to be made on the
same grounds which were in existence when the original order
wa>;
made".
We do not think that the release of the detenu on b1il by the
Sessions Court would constitute fresh facts as would justify the .mpugned detention order, nor is there any substance in the contention that
since in the first order of detention the security of the State and the
maintenance of public order were mentioned and in the second order
merely the security of the State was mentioned, they can be considered
as fresh facts.
Both the detention orders are passed under s. 3( I) (a)
(ii) which set out the prejudicial acts under which the suspected
actions of the detenu will fall and for which the detention 1s made. It
is immaterial whether the detaining authority is satisfied that the
grounds on which the detention is being made for preventing the
detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the
State or the maintenance of public order, or for prev~nting him from
acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State alone, because in either case, one of the objects is to prevent the detenu from
acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The variation in the enumeraaon of the prejudicial acts have nothing to do with
fresh facts.
There being no fresh facts on which the impugned detention order
is made, that order is invalid and the detention of the petitinoer cannot
be sustained.
In the view we have taken, it is not necessary to deal
with the other contention~. The petitioner is directed to be released
forthwith.
K.B.N.