# N. SENGODAN v. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (PROHIBITION & EXCISE) DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2013] 13 S.C.R. 341
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-07-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4815 of 2013
- **Bench:** G.S. Singhvi, SUDHANSU JYOTI -Ji. MUKHOPADHAYA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/n-sengodan-v-secretary-to-government-home-prohibition-excise-department-chennai-28979
- **Pages:** 47

## Headnote

-.
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of c
..
Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,
Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1982 -
s.3(2) - Detention of appellant under the 1982 Act- Advisory
"'
Board constituted u/s.10 of the 1982 Act held that there was
y
no sufficient cause for detention of appellant -
State D
Government subsequently revoked the order of detention -
Appellant, if entitled to damages for being in detention for
more than two months - Held: Respondents failed to bring
on record evidence to show that appellant was engaged, or
was making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities E
as a 'Goonda' which may affect or are likely to affect adversely
the maintenance of public order - Nothing on record to
,.A
suggest that appellant, either by himself or as a member of
or leader of a gang habitually committed, or attempted to
commit or abetted the commission of offence punishable F
under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XX.II of /PC -
Appellant had to remain in custody for more than two months
on the basis of opinion given by the respondents based on
facts which were not in existence - Respondent-State and its
~,_,A
officers grossly abused legal power to punish appellant to
G
destroy his reputation in a manner non-oriented by Jaw by
detaining him under the 1982 Act in /odgi(/g a criminal case
u/s.3 of the 1992 Act and u/s.505(1)(b) !PC .based on wrong
statements which were fully unwarranted - Consequently, cost
341
H
342
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 13 S.C.R.
A of Rs. 2 lacs imposed on the State of Tamil Nadu for payment
in favour of appellant - Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act,
1922 - s. 3 - Penal Code, 1860 -
s. 505 - Preventive
Detention.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 21 and 22 - Personal
B
liberty - Deprivation of - Held: To be only as per procedure
prescribed in CrPC and the Evidence Act conformable to the
mandate of the Constitution -
The investigator is not
c
D
empowered to trample upon the personal liberty of a person
.k--
when he has acted by malafides.
Through a press statement published in a Tamil
Newspaper "Malai Murasu", the appellant, a retired police
officer, had made requisition on behalf of the officials
working in the Tamil Nadu Police Department to the
Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
It was alleged that the appellant was inciting the
police personnel in Tamil Nadu to form an association to
fight for their rights against the Government and that he
toured several districts in the State and incited the
E serving police personnel over forming of an association,
and acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order. Charges under Section 3 of the Police
(Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and Section
505(1)(b) IPC were levelled against the appellant.
F
The appellant was declared as "Goonda" and
detained under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention
of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders,
Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders
and Slum-grabbers Act, 1982. However, the Advisory
G Board constituted under Section 10 of the 1982 Act held
that there was no sufficient cause for detention of the
appellant and thereafter the State Government revoked
the order of detention.
"
The question which arose for consideration in the
H instant appeal was whether in the facts and
N. SENGODAN v. SCY. TO GOVT. HOME DEPTI., 343
r
CHENNAI
circumstances of the case the appellant was entitled for A
any damage for having detained for around two months
under Section 3(2) of the 1982 Act.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The Police-Forces (Restriction of Rights) 8
Act, 1966 provides for the .restriction of certain rights
-.X
conferred by Part Ill of the Constitution in their application
to the members of the Forces charged with the
..
maintenance of public order as to ensure the proper
discharge of their duties and the maintenance of c
discipline among them. Section 3 of the 1966 Act restricts
right to form

## Text

_Characters 0–39,784 of 83,534. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39784 for what follows._

[2013] 13 S.C.R. 341
N. SENGODAN
A
v.
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (PROHIBITION &
EXCISE) DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 4815 of 2013)
JULY 1, 2013
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
-Ji.
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]
-.
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of c
..
Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,
Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1982 -
s.3(2) - Detention of appellant under the 1982 Act- Advisory
"'
Board constituted u/s.10 of the 1982 Act held that there was
y
no sufficient cause for detention of appellant -
State D
Government subsequently revoked the order of detention -
Appellant, if entitled to damages for being in detention for
more than two months - Held: Respondents failed to bring
on record evidence to show that appellant was engaged, or
was making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities E
as a 'Goonda' which may affect or are likely to affect adversely
the maintenance of public order - Nothing on record to
,.A
suggest that appellant, either by himself or as a member of
or leader of a gang habitually committed, or attempted to
commit or abetted the commission of offence punishable F
under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XX.II of /PC -
Appellant had to remain in custody for more than two months
on the basis of opinion given by the respondents based on
facts which were not in existence - Respondent-State and its
~,_,A
officers grossly abused legal power to punish appellant to
G
destroy his reputation in a manner non-oriented by Jaw by
detaining him under the 1982 Act in /odgi(/g a criminal case
u/s.3 of the 1992 Act and u/s.505(1)(b) !PC .based on wrong
statements which were fully unwarranted - Consequently, cost
341
H
342
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 13 S.C.R.
A of Rs. 2 lacs imposed on the State of Tamil Nadu for payment
in favour of appellant - Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act,
1922 - s. 3 - Penal Code, 1860 -
s. 505 - Preventive
Detention.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 21 and 22 - Personal
B
liberty - Deprivation of - Held: To be only as per procedure
prescribed in CrPC and the Evidence Act conformable to the
mandate of the Constitution -
The investigator is not
c
D
empowered to trample upon the personal liberty of a person
.k--
when he has acted by malafides.
Through a press statement published in a Tamil
Newspaper "Malai Murasu", the appellant, a retired police
officer, had made requisition on behalf of the officials
working in the Tamil Nadu Police Department to the
Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
It was alleged that the appellant was inciting the
police personnel in Tamil Nadu to form an association to
fight for their rights against the Government and that he
toured several districts in the State and incited the
E serving police personnel over forming of an association,
and acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order. Charges under Section 3 of the Police
(Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and Section
505(1)(b) IPC were levelled against the appellant.
F
The appellant was declared as "Goonda" and
detained under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention
of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders,
Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders
and Slum-grabbers Act, 1982. However, the Advisory
G Board constituted under Section 10 of the 1982 Act held
that there was no sufficient cause for detention of the
appellant and thereafter the State Government revoked
the order of detention.
"
The question which arose for consideration in the
H instant appeal was whether in the facts and
N. SENGODAN v. SCY. TO GOVT. HOME DEPTI., 343
r
CHENNAI
circumstances of the case the appellant was entitled for A
any damage for having detained for around two months
under Section 3(2) of the 1982 Act.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The Police-Forces (Restriction of Rights) 8
Act, 1966 provides for the .restriction of certain rights
-.X
conferred by Part Ill of the Constitution in their application
to the members of the Forces charged with the
..
maintenance of public order as to ensure the proper
discharge of their duties and the maintenance of c
discipline among them. Section 3 of the 1966 Act restricts
right to form association, freedom of speech, etc. but
...
there is no specific ban to form association. [Paras 27
and 29] [375-H; 376-A-B; 377-D]
y
D
2. From the press statement dated 8th December,
1997 it is apparent that no incitement has been made by
the appellant against the State Government nor the Police
force has been instigated. The appellant cited past
incident of 30th November, 1997 in which one Selvaraj a E
Police constable was attacked and killed which could not
be brought t() the notice of the Government by Police
~A
constables for taking proper action and their wives were
forced to fight for their rights by coming to the street in
bringing this to the notice of the Government. A reminder F
was given to the Chief Minister to allow to form
Association or Union for the purpose of seeking proper
protection to the Police constables and to overcome their
~
difficulties and to explain their true state of affairs as
apparent from the press note dated 8th December, 1997.
'"
[Para 30] [377-G-H; 378-A-B]
G
3. Section 505 IPC relates to the statements
conducing public mischief. In the present case nothing
has been brought to the notice of this Court to prove that
the appellant with intent to cause, fear or alarm to the
H
344
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
'"'(
A
public, or to any section of the public or to induce to
commit an offence against the State Government or
against the public tranquility, issued the press statement.
Therefore, it is not clear on what basis the charge under
Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act,
B
1922 and Section 505(1)(b} IPC was levelled against the
appellant. From the final. report filed in the Fairlands
)
Police Station Crime No.11/98, it is also found that in
Aabsence of ingredients to hook-up the appellant under
the aforesaid sections of law it was advised to drop the
....-
criminal case and the same was accordingly dropped.
..
c
[Paras 31, 32 and 33] [378-G; 379-C-F]
4. The appellant was declared as 'Goonda' under
detenti~n order dated 9th January, 1998 and was
...
detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 'Goonda'
'f
D is defined under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982. Section 2(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14of1982 defines
"acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order". In the present case the respondents have
failed to bring on record the evidence to show that the
E appellant was engaged,· or was making preparations fot
engaging, in any of his activities as a 'Goonda' which may
affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of
A,.
public order. There is nothing on record to suggest that
the appellant, who either by himself or as a member of
F
or leader of a gang habitually committed, or attempted to
commit or abetted the commission of offence punishable
under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXll of the
Indian Penal Code. In fact, in absence of any such
ingredients, the Advisory Board constituted under
.,A--. •
~
G Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 rightly held
that there was no sufficient cause for detention of the
appellant. For the same very reason the State Government
revoked the order of detention dated 9th January, 1998
made by the Commissioner of Police, Salem City by G.O.
H
Rt.No.66 dated 3rd March, 1998 issued from Prohibition
N. SENGODAN v. SCY. TO GOVT. HOME DEPTT.,,
345
CHENNAI
r
and Excise (XIV) Department. [Paras 34, 35 and 36) [379A
-~
G; 380-8, D-G]
5. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the
appellant while in service took part in pro-police
association activities or formed any association such as 8
South Arcot District Police Association. There is nothing
on the record to suggest that he formed another
association after retirement, namely, Tamil Nadu Police
-)
Officials Union. The respondents have failed to bring on
record any evidence to suggest that the appellant incited
the police personnel of Tamil Nadu to form an association c
to fight their rights against the Government. The
respondents have also failed to bring on record that the
appellant toured to the Districts of Coimbatore,
Tiruchirapalli, Pudukottai and Chennai City and incited
D
serving police personnel over forming an association in
~
a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public
order. The respondents have filed certain statements of
some police officers but they cannot be relied upon. They
are not the statements made by any person under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. or before any Court of law. E
Neither any date is shown therein nor it is stated that they
ate true copies of the original documents. [Paras 39, 40)
[382-F-H; 383-A·B]
6. In the present case, though there is no sufficient F
cause for the detention of the appellant. The statements
made in the. counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent,
2nd respondent, the then Inspector General and
Commissioner of Police, Salem City and the 3rd
respondent, the then Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police G
___...
Station, Salem City, are not based on the record and the
justification given for detention clearly shows that the
said respondents, with an intention detained the
appellant on 6th January, 1998 based on facts which
were not in existence. The appellant had to remain in
H
custody for more than two months on the basis of
346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 13 S.C.R.
A
opinion given by the respondents based on facts which
were not in existence. [Para 41] [383-C, F-G]
7. Noticeably, the respondents have not even
repented in taking wrong action, they have nowhere
B
mentioned that the appellant was wrongly apprehended
and taken in custody. From the plain reading of the press
note published in the Tamil Newspaper "Malai Murasu"
it merely shows that the appellant had made a requisition
on behalf of the officials working in the Tamil Nadu Police
Department to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu,
C Dr. Kalaignar stating that the police is forced to seek
protection for themselves as they have no solution as to
how to stress their demands to the government. The
press statement does not make out a case either under
Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act,
D
1992 or under Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC. On the other
hand, the press release shows that the appellant acted
in accordance with the 1966 Act under which permission
is required to form an Association. [Paras 42, 43 and 44]
[383-H; 384-A-C, E-F]
E
8. In this case the appellant has not only made
assertion but demonstrated by placing either by admitted
or proved facts and circumstances obtainable that even
though the case was not made out but he was harassed.
F
Personal lib~rty is of the widest amplitude covering
variety of rights. Its deprivation shall be only as per
procedure prescribed in the Code and the Evidence Act
conformable to the mandate of the Supreme Law, the
Constitution. The investigator must be alive to the
G mandate of Constitution and is not empowered to
trample upon the personal liberty of a person when he
>---
has acted by malafides. [Paras 46, 47) (385-G-H; 386-A]
State of Bihar and another vs. P.P. Sharma, /AS and
another 1992 Supp.(1) sec 222: 1991 (2) SCR 1 - relied
H
on.
N. SENGODAN v. SCY. TO GOVT. HOME DEPTI.,
347
CHENNAI
9. The respondents before the Advisory Board or A
before the trial court failed to bring on record any
evidence to frame the charges against the appellant
under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection)
Act, 1992 and under Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC or under
the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The action on the part of B
the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondent in support of their act
of detaining the appellant illegally by placing some
material beyond the record justifies the appellant's
allegation that the respondents abused their power and
position to support their unfair order. The respondent- c
State and its officers have grossly abused legal power to
punish the appellant to destroy his reputation in a manner
non-oriented by law by detaining him under the Tamil
Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in lodging a Criminal Case under
Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 0
1992 and under Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC based on the
wrong statements which were fully unwarranted. The
action taken by the respondents based on reasons of fact
which do not exist, therefore, the same is held to be
infected with an abuse of power. In view of the finding E
. aforesaid, cost of Rs.2 lacs is imposed on the State of
Tamil Nadu for payment in favour of the appellant. [Paras
48, 49, 50 and 51] [386-B-C, F-H; 387-A, C-D]
,.A,
Bhut Nath Mete vs. State of WB. (1974) 1 SCC 645:
(
' ---'
1974 (3) SCR 315 - relied on.
F
Case Law Reference:
1991 (2) SCR 1
1974 (3) SCR 315
relied on
relied on
Paras 45, 47
Para 50
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4815 of 2013.
G
From the Judgment & Order dated 16.08.2010 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 1426 of 2010. H
A
B
348
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 13 S.C.R.
V.J. Francis, A. Radhakrishnan for the Appellant.
S. Guru Krishna Kumar, AAG, B. Balaji, A. Prasanna
Venkat, K.V. Vijayakumar, Subramonium Prasad for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave
granted.
C
2. In this appeal the judgment dated 16th August, 2010
passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.A.
No.1426 of 2010 is under challenge. By the impugned judgment
the Division Bench u-pheld the judgment dated 27th April, 2010
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.1243 of 2003
D and dismissed the appeal, affirming the finding recorded by the
learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by his
judgment dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant
claiming the. damages and praying for issuance of a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to pay him jointly and
severally a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for his alleged illegal
E
detention and confinement.
3. The relevant facts of the case are as follows:
The appellant is an Ex-service man who served in the
F
Indian Army for a period of seven years; later he joined in the
Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Services and retired from the
service on 21st October, 1997 as Inspector of Police at Attur
Police Station, Salem District. The 2nd respondent by name
V. Jegannathan, is a former Inspector General and
G Commissioner of Police, Salem City and the 3rd respondent,
Ramasamy, is former Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police
Station, Salem City. The 4th respondent, E.Gopi, is former
Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem City
on whose complaint a case in Crime No.11/98 was registered
against the appellant under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement
H
-
..
N. SENGODAN v. SCY. TO GOVT. HOME DEPTI.1
349
CHENNAI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
r
to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and Section 505(1 )(b) of the Indian A
Penal Code.
4. According to the appellant, he had served both the Indian
Army and State Police Service with devotion and had the
privilege to win the appreciation of his superior officers in both B
the capacities. He is a family man and his wife is working as
Senior Lecturer in the Government Arts College, Salem. His
sons having completed their seven year course in Medicine in
_).;._
Russia are doing their internship in the Government Kilpauk
Medical College, Chennai. They are all living together as a
happy close knit family sharing their joys and sorrows with one c
another. Besides, the appellant has wide relations as well as
friends who are all having high esteem on him and his family.
The version of the appellant is that after his retirement, he had
the opportunity to realize the difficulties encountered by each
D
and every member of the police force in Tamil Nadu and had
"
y
voiced the merits of forming an Association through which
demands of members of the police force could be legally made
to set right the wrongs committed to them. Further, according
to the appellant, he neither indulge in any act/acts leading to any
resentment in the mind of any personnel in the police service E
nor was propagating anything seditious.
While so, Tamil Daily Malai Murasu dated 18th December,
1997, published a news item allegedly authored by the
appellant. Based on the said news item, on 6th January, 1998,
F
the 3rd respondent, Ramasamy, the then Inspector of Police,
Fairlands Police Station, Salem City had registered a case in
Crime No.11 /98 for offence under Section 3 of the Police
(Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and Section 505(1)(b) of
~
the Indian Penal Code. Further, on 7th January, 1998 the G
appellant was arrested by the 3rd respondent and remanded
--
to judicial custody. He was remanded in judicial custody by the
Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem in connection with the above
said case and lodged in Central Prison, Salem for a period of
two month. It is also alleged that while the appellant was confined
H
350
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A
in Central Prison, Salem the Superintendent, Central Prison,
Salem served on him a detention order in C.M.P.f\lo.04/
Goonda/Salem City/98, dated 9th January, 1998 passed by
2nd respondent the then Inspector General and Commissioner
of Police, Salem City. By the said order, the Commissioner of
B
Police, Salem City detained the appellant under "The
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, DrugOffende;s, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1982(hereinafter referred to
as the 'Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982')". The said order appears
c to be passed by the 2nd respondent based on the proposal
submitted by 3rd respondent.
5. On 9th February, 1998, the appellant made a written
representation to the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
and sent it through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.
D
He raised several pleas in the representation. The Advisory
Board established under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act
14 of 1982, exercising its powers under the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 12 of the said Act and addressing itself
to all the f~cts and the connected records, having found nothing
E
recommended for the revocation of detention order of the
appellant. The Governor of Tamil Nadu, in view of the
recommendation, revoked the order of detention and directed
that the appellant be released forthwith by the Government Order
Rt.No.636, Prohibition and Excise(XIV) Department, dated 3rd
F
March, 1998.
6. According to the appellant, the above detention order
was clamped by the respondents against him with a malafide
intention of detaining the appellant under the Tamil Nadu Act
14 of 1982 with a view to punish him. The 3rd respondent,
G Ramasamy, the then Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police
Station had registered the said complaint given by 4th
respondent Gopi in his Police Station Crime No.11/98 and the
appellant was arre~ted. in connection with the said crime and
subsequently detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982
H for a period of two months till he was released by the order of
N. SENGODAN v. SCY. TO GOVT. HOME DEPTT.,
351
CHENNAI [SUOHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
the Advisory Board revoking the order of detention dated 3rd
A
'T
March, 1998. It is alleged that after the release from prison,
there was no action from the part of the 3rd respondent for l:i
long time and no charge sheet was filed against the appellant
in the Police Station Crime No.11 /98. Ultimately, a final report
was filed which was received by the Judicial Magistrate No.V,
B
Salem Court in the month of June, 2001 and the same has been
accepted by the learned Magistrate and numbered as
R.C.S.N0.19/2001 and the same was recorded. The appellant
->-
received the copy of the same on 29th June, 2001.
7. Further, the case of the appellant is that since he was c
subjected to harassment particularly by the 2nd respondent, V.
Jegannathan, the then Inspector General and Commissioner of
Police, Salem City; the 3rd respondent, the then Inspector of
Police, Fairlands Police Station by undergoing imprisonment
D
as a remand prisoner and as a detenu in Central Prison, Salem
~ y
on the basis of a false case registered against him with the
object of destroying his reputation and image. The appellant
was very much affected both in body and mind. The appellant
was also subjected to mental cruelty and was also physically
affected as a result of the confinement in Central Prison, Salem.
E
The family members of. the appellant have also suffered
physically and mentally due to malafide acts of the 2nd and 4th
respondents. The 1st respondent has been arrayed as one of.
the respondents in view of the prayer for damages sought for
in the writ petition.
F
8. The appellant served lawyer's notice dated 27th June,
2002 to all the respondents claiming damages in terms of
money for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent, V.
Jegannathan, the then Inspector General of Police forwarded
G
~
a reply dated 1st July, 2002 to the lawyer's notice claiming
"-'
immunity to his actions. The 4th respondent, Gopi also
forwarded a reply by letter dated 24th July, 2002 claiming
innocent and denying the allegation that he had any malafide
intention to foist a case against him. No reply has been filed
H
by both the 1st and 3rd respondents.
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A
9. The 2nd respondent, V. Jegannathan filed a counteraffidavit in the writ petition and took a plea that the appellant
falsely claimed to be the convener of Tamil Nadu Police
Employees Association and that in that capacity he had been
visiting several Districts and insisting the members of the
B disciplined police force to join the said Association so as to
raise their voice against the Government. It was also stated that
the appellant submitted a representation dated 9th February,
1998 in which he tendered apology for his conduct and gave
assurance that he will not indulge in any activity in future and
c on that basis prayed for revocation of detention order. The 2nd
respondent forwarded the same to the Chief Office, Chennai
with his report. The 3rd respondent was present before the
Advisory Board when the matter came up for review and he
presented a copy of the representation of the appellant. Only
D on the basis of the undertaking of the appellant that he will not
indulge in any such activity in future, the Advisory Board ordered
the release of the appellant. It was alleged that the appellant
had willfully suppressed the material fact that he tendered an
apology and gave. in writing an undertaking that he will not
E indulge in any such activity in future.
10. Further, according to the 2nd respondent, the order of
detention issued by him was confirmed by the Government of
Tamil Nadu in G.O.Rt.No.195, Prohibition aild Excise
Department dated 20th January, 1998. Before issuing the
F detention order on the basis of the report of the 3rd respondent,
the concerned legal advisor was consulted by the 2nd
respondent and only after he gave his opinion that the activities
of the appellant would attract the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Act 14 of 1982 the detention order was issued. Therefore,
G according to the 2nd respondent, he issued the detention order
in a bonafide manner and in exercise of power vested with him
in his official capacity. The 2nd respondent further pleaded that
he had no malafide intention and only on the basis of materials
placed before him and being satisfied that it is just and
H
I ~
N. SENGODAN v. SCY TO GOVT. HOME DEPTI.,
353
,.-
CHENNAI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
essential to detain the appellant under the Tamil Nadu Act 14
A
of 1982 he issued the detention order in a bonafide manner.
11. The 1st respondent, the Secretary to the Government,
Home (Prohibition & Excise) Department, Government of Tamil
Nadu filed a separate affidavit in the writ petition. He has also
B
taken pleas that the appellant falsely claimed to be the convener
of the Tamil Nadu Police Employees Association and that in
' ->--
that capacity he had been visiting several Districts and insisting
the members of the disciplined police force to join the said
Association so as to raise their voice against the Government. c
It is stated that before issuing the detention order on the basis
of the report of the 3rd respondent, the legal advisor was
consulted by the 2nd respondent and only after getting his
opinion; the detention order was issued by G.O.Rt.No.195,
..
Prohibition & Excise Department, dated 20th January, 1998 .
'
y
D
....
The 1st respondent has taken a similar plea that the appellant
~
has wilfully suppressed the material fact that he gave an
undertaking in writing that he will not indulge in any such activity
in future and that the respondents never had any m~lafide
intention and only on the basis of the materials placed and being
satisfied that it is just and essential to detain the appellant under
E
the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the respondents issued the
...>-
detention order in a bonafide manner in their official capacity .
The 1st respondent has also taken similar plea that the 2nd
respondent issued the detention order in a bonafide manner
in his· official capacity, the claim for damages made is
F
unsustainable.
12. Learned Single Judge by the judgment dated 27th
~
April, 2010 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the
appellant has failed to establish malafide intention on the part
G
_,
of the respondents in registering a criminal case and detaining
him under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said judgment was
upheld by the Division Bench by the impugned judgment dated
16th August, 2010.
13. The appellant has highlighted the relevant facts as
H
354
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 13 S.C.R.
A noticed above and the learned counsel placed reliance on the
First information Report, the communication made by the
parties, order of detention, etc. It was submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the burden was wrongly placed
on the detenu particularly when no explanation was given by the
B respondents as to why action was taken for detention of the
appellant. It was further contented that the High Court erred in
holding that the appellant was involved in habitual activities
prejudicial to the interest of the public order by touring various
Districts and soliciting the police officials to join the association,
C though there was no material available on record to support the
same. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in
absence of any evidence against the appellant it was not open
for the High Court to hold that the appellant toured various
Districts to mobilize public opinion.
D
E
F
G
H
14. L-earned counsel for the 1st respondent strenuously took
pain to define malafide intention to suggest that nothing
malafide either on facts or in law has been proved by the
appellant.
15. The only question requires for our consideration is
whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant
is entitled for any damage for having detained for around two
months under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982
in the Crime No.11/98.
16. From the record we find that much after his retirement
a press statement was released by the appellant on 8th
December, 1997 in a Tamil Newspaper "Malai Murasu", which
reads as follows:
"PRESS STATEMENT
This is the Requisition sent by Inspector S. Sengodan,
State Orgnizer on behalf of the officials working in the
Tamil Nadu Police DepartmefJf: tp the Hon'ble Chief
Minister of Tamil Nadu Dr. Kalaignar.
---f
.--
N. SENGODAN v. SCY. TO GOVT. HOME DEPTI.. 355
CHENNAI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
The Police Department is forced to seek protection A
for themselves as we have no solution as to how to stress
our demands to the Government.
For example on 30. 11. 97 in the incident that took
place in Kovai one Constable Thiru Selvaraj was attacked
8
and died and even this incident could not be brought to
the notice of the Government by police constables for
taking proper action in this regard and on their behalves,
their respective wives are forced to fight for their rights by
coming to the street in bringing this to the notice of the C
Government.
Thus in order to avoid this situation, already a
request was made to the Government by the officials in
the Police Department to form an Association/Union and
to act accordingly. As a reminder, again such request is
D
made for forming of an association for the purpose of
seeking proper protection to the constables and to over
come their difficulties and to explain their true state of
affairs.
Therefore, the Hon'ble Doctor Kalaignar who is
treating the people belonging to various community, as
equal, is requested to accord sanction to form an
association for the above said purposes.
Sd/.
S. Sengodan
E
F
Dated: 0811211997
State Organizer
Tamil
Nadu Police
Department employees" G
17. Based on the aforesaid press statement the First
lnfc;>.rmation Report was lo~ged by the 4th respondent, E.Gopi,
the then· Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station,
Salem City on 6th January, 1998 impleading the appellant as
H
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A an accused. A case (Crime No.11/98) was registered in the
Fairlands Police Station, Salem for the offence under Section
3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and
Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC, relevant portion of which reads
as under:
B
c
D
E
a/N THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE N0.5,
SALEM
CRIME NO: 11198, FA/RLANDS POLICE STATION,
FIRST INFOMRA TION REPORT.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
xxxx xxxx xxxx
Humbly Submitted:
Today i.e. on 6.1.98 at about 8.00 p.m. night while I being
the Inspector of Police was at the station, the Inspector
of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem City
Thiru Gopi was present at the station and gave a report
along with a paper News cutting dated 8. 12. 97 published
in the news paper called 'Malai Murasu at page 2 which
reads as follows . .._
From:
E. Gopi, Inspector of Police,
Sooramangalam P. S.
Salem City.
F
To
G
H
The Inspector of Police,
Fair/ands Police Station, Salem· City.
Sir,
I
am
working
as
Inspector of Police,
Sooramangalam Poiice Station, Salem City. Today
6.1.98, I read Malai Murasu dated 8.12.97 and I came
toknow that one Thiru N. Sengodan, formerly Inspector
of Police, Attur Police Station, Salem District now retired
•
~---
N. SENGODAN v. SCY. TO GOVT. HOME DEPTI.,
357
CHENNAI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
and settled at 3190 P & T Colony, New Fair/ands,
A
Salem.16, Salem City has given a statement to Malai
Murasu, Salem Edition as "In the Report given by
Sengodan, Organizer of the Tamil Nadu State Police
Department Association 'it has been stated as follows:
The Police Department which is giving protection
8
to the General public is forced to seek protection for
themselves as we have no solution as to how to stress
->--
our demands to the Government.
-
In the incident that took place in Kovai one c
Constable Se/varaj was attacked and died and even this
incident could not be brought to the notice of the
Government by police constables for taking proper action
in this regard and on their behalves, their respective
y
wives are forced to fight for justice by coming to the street
D
..
in bringing this to the notice of the Government .
Thus in order to avoid this situation, already a
request was made to the Government by the Police
Department to form an Association/Union and to act
E
accordingly. I request you once again as a reminder to
to.rm an Association for the purpose of seE:Jking proper
protection to the constables and to over come their
--~
difficulties and to explain their true state of affairs.
From the above statement, it is clear that the above
F
said Thiru N. Sengodan, Inspector of Police (Retired)
intentionally caused disaffectin towards the Police
Department, Established by Law, in Tamil Nadu and also
"1..-4,
with the intention of committing a breach Qf discipline
among the police force and also induces them to
G
withheld their services. I am also enclosing a copy of the
paper cutting of Mafai Murasu, Salem Edition dated
8.12.97in page No.2, for your perusal and action.
Hence·/ request you to take suitable action against
H
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A
Tr.N. Sengodan, Inspector of Police (Retd.) in this
regards.
B
c
D
Yours faithfully,
Sd.
E. Gopi Inspector, Dt. 6. 1. 98.
On the basis of the above said report, received by
me; I registered a case in Crime No. 11198 on the file of
Fair/ands Police Station for the offence under Section 3
of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and
Section 505 (1)(b) /PC and sent the copies of the First
Information Report to the concerned officials and taken
the case on file for investigation.
Sd.
Inspector of Police
Fair/ands 6. 1. 98"
In view of the aforesaid criminal case the appellant was
arrested on the same day, 6th January, 1998 and was taken
in custody.
18. The very same press note was used for issuance of
E detention order dated 9th January, 1998 by the 2nd respondent,
V. Jegannathan, the then Inspector General and Commissioner
of Police, Salem City for detaining the appellant under Tamil
Nadu Act 14 of 1982, which reads as follows:
F
"PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSEPCTOR GENERAL AND
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SALEM CITY
PRESENT: TH/RU V. JEGANNATHAN, /.P.S.,
Office of the Inspector General and Commissioner of
Police,
Sa/em City.
G C.M.P .No.04/GOONDAISALEM CITY/98
Dated:09-01-1998
DETENTION ORDER
Whereas, I, V. Jegannathan, l.P. S., Inspector
H
General and Commissioner of Police, Salem City, on the
N. SENGODAN v. SCY. TO GOVT. HOME DEPTI., 359
CHENNAI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
. ~
materials placed before me, am satisfied that Thiru. N.
A
Sengodan, Male, aged 59 years, son of late Nanjappa
Gounder, No.319, P&T Colony, (East) New Fair/ands,
Sa/em-16, Fair/ands Police Station Limits, Salem City is
a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14
of 1982, and
B
Whereas the aforesaid individual is found
_)-
indulging in an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of
Public Order and details of which are set out in detail in
-
the grounds of detention.
c
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by Sub -section (2) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
yOffenders and S/umgrabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act D
-~
1411982) read with the orders issued by the Government
in G. O,Ms.No.221, Prohibition and Excise (XIV)
Department dated:18.10.1997 under sub-section (2) of
Section 3 of the said Act, I hereby direct that the said,
Thiru N. Sengodan, Male, aged 59 years, son of late
E
Nanjappa Gounder, No.3190, P& T Colony (East), New
Fair/ands, Salem-16, Fair/ands P. S. Limits, Salem City
-_,-;....
who is a 'GOON DA' be detained at the Central Prison,
Salem.
Given under my hand_ and seal of this office, this
F
the 9th day of January 1998.
SdlINSPECTOR GENERAL AND
~I_....-(
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
G
SALEM CITY.
To
Thiru N. Sengoan,
Male, aged 59 years,
Son of late Nanjappa Gounder,
H
A
B
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
No. 3190, P& T Colony (East)
New Fair/ands, Salem-16.
Fair/ands P. S. Limits, Sa/em City.
(Now in Central Prison, Salem)
Through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem."
19. The appellant having taken in Central Prison made a
representation before the 2nd respondent, Inspector General
and Commissioner of Police, Salem City by stating that he has
no criminal antecedents. It was further stated that he was in the
c 'Police TASK FORCE' under the State which was formed to
nab the notorious sandal wood smuggler Veerappan and his
associates. As a Police officer his service record remained .
extremely good and he had been rewarded a number of times
and that meritorious service entry has been made in his service
0 record. He took plea that even if the act alleged to have
indulged is taken to be true, it neither constitute an offe11ce nor
will it result in the disruption of public order. He requested the
Commissioner of Police, Salem City to revoke the order of
detention and gave an undertaking that he will not indulge in
E any activity which is per se illegal and unlawful. The relevant
portion of the representation dated 9th February, 1998 reads
as follows:
F
G
H
"/ most respectfully submit as hereunder:
On 7-1-1998 the Inspector of Police, Fair/ands, Salen
City arrested me in my residence and took me to the
Police Station. The grounds of arrest he informed is that
a case has been registered at his station in Crime No. 11
of 1998 for offences under Section 3 of the Police
(Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and under Section
505(1)(b) /PC and that the same was under investigation.
I was further informed that the said case has been
registered on 6.1.1998 upon a complaint said to have
been given by Thiru. Gopi, Inspector of Police,
Sooramanga/am, Salem City to the effect that I was
---
N. SENGODAN v. SCY. TO GOVT. HOME DEPTT.,.
361
CHENNAI [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
~ ,>-
attempting to form an Association to fight for and secure
A
certain rights to the serving Police personnel in the State
of Tamil Nadu and thereby incidentally inciting the police
personnel. Which is in a manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of the public order on being produced
before the Judicial Magistrate, I was remanded to judicial
B
custody and lodged in the Central Prison, Salem.
On 9.1.1998 at about 3.45 p.m. the Superintendent,
1
-~
Central Prison, Salem served the order in reference on
me. The Inspector General and Commissioner of Police,
Sa/em City has passed the said order exercising the c
,.,.
powers vested in him as the detaining authority under Act
14 of 1982, The detaining authority has passed this
detention order on the basis and acting upon an Affidavit
filed by Thiru.M.Ramasamy, Inspector of Police, Fairland
D
Police Station as the sponsoring authority.
'
)"--
1 submit that I had never been cited much less convicted
for any offence previously, I have retired as a honest
Police Officer I have never come to adverse notice even
. during my service, I have been an ex-serviceman while
E
in service while many officers were not willing to join the
'TASK FORCE' that was formed to nab the notorious
sandal wood smuggler Veerappan I offered· to join and
->
indeed served in the "TASK FORCE".
F
I humbly submit that my record of service as a Police
Official was extremely good. I have won several rewards
and meritorious service entries.
I submit that even if the acts alleged to have indulged
~~
in are assumed to be true cannot be said they will result
G
in the disruption of the Public Order it is nowhere said that
as a result of my acts at any point of time or at any place
a public order was disrupted.
I submit that I undertake not to indulge in any activities
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 13 S.C.R.
which is per se illegal and unlawful. I submit that I have
not taken any part in the strike or in the connected
activities. So I request that I am a innocent and I may be
released at an early date. I assure you that I will not take
any part in future in this connection.
I therefore request the Commissioner of Police to be
pleased to consider this Memorial and revoke the order
of detention.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
DATED: 9-2-1998
(N.
SENGODAN)"
20. The detention order was placed before the Advisory
Board under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. After
taking into consideration the representation and the connected
records the Advisory Board expressed its unanimous opinion
that there was no sufficient cause for detention of the appellant,
N. Sengodan.