# SHYAMALCHAKRABORTY v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CALCUTIA & ANR

- **Citation:** [1970] 1 S.C.R. 762
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-08-04
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 102 of 1969
- **Bench:** S. M. S!Kri, G. K. Mitter, K. S. Hegde
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shyamalchakraborty-v-commissioner-of-police-calcutia-anr-4691
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Prcventi\·e Detention Act, 1950, ss. 3 and 1-'Public order' in s. 3Act.r which are ofiences u1Jder Jrtdian Pe11al Code whether come under
pur,,iew of 'public order'-Representation to Government b;i.· detenu after
casP d(•alt \viii: by Advisory Board-D11ty of Govern1nent to
consider
representation under s. 7.
l"hc petitioner was arrested and detained by an order of the Commis·
sioner of Police, Calcutta under s. 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act,
1950.
According to the grounds of detention supplied to him his acti·
vi ties \Vere prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order'. The petitioners'
case was placed h~forc the Advisory Hoard and on obtaining its opinion
1hc Governor confirmed the order of delenlion.
It was after this that
the petitioner made representations to the State Government.
'fhen he
filed the present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution based on the
follo\l.'ing grounds : (i) 1hat there was a hrcach of s. 7 of the Act inasmuch
as his rcprcsentalions \l.·erc not considered by the Government; (ii) that
the grounds furnished to him mentidned offences under the Indian Penal
Code and these could not he used for the purpose of detention except in
emergencies; (iii) that the grounds did not have any relation to 'public
order'.
HELD: (i) It is obligatory on the Government to deal with the
representations made by the detcnu, but i'l the present case the dctenu
made his representations only after the Advisory Board had dealt with
the matter. The State Govcrnn1ent \l.'as in the process of dealing with his
representation.
In the circumstances it could not he said that there had
been a breach of s. 7 of rhc Acl. (765 E-G]
(ii) The contravention of any la"' alY•ays affects order but before it
can be said to affect public order it must affect the community or the
public at large. [766 Al
Pus/zkar ,\111klrerjee & Ors. v.
Tiu~ Stcte of West Bengal, (1969) 2
S.C.R. 635, applied.
The grounds of detention supplied to the dctenu in the present case
B
c
D
E
F
showed that on one occasion he took part in rioting ~long with associates
G
armed with lathis, iron rods and acid bulbs. On another occasion he took
part in assaulting a constahle on duty.
On a third occasion he and his
associates v.·ere armed with deadly \1.:eapons v.·hich were actually used in
indiscriminately endangering human lives in the locality. (766 C-D]
From, these activities the object of the detenu seems to have been to
te-rrorise the locality and bring the v.·hote machinery of law and order to
a bait.
The conclusion of the detaining authority that the detenu was
H
likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public orde-r
in the future and it \l.'3s nccess;:f"y to prevent him from doing so, was
jusrified. (766 E-FJ
'
I
S. CHAKRABORTY v: COMMR., POLICE (Sikri, J.)
7 63
A
The fact that public sector was affected by an act which was also an
offence under the Indian Penal Code was irrelevant. [766 Fl
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 102 of 1969.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ
in the nature of habeas corpus.
B
Vinoo Bhagat, for the petitioner.
c
D
E
F
G
H
S. P. Mitra, G. S. Chatierjee for Sukumar Basu, for the respondents.

## Text

762
SHYAMALCHAKRABORTY
v.
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CALCUTIA & ANR.
August 4, 1969
[S. M. S!KRI, G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J
Prcventi\·e Detention Act, 1950, ss. 3 and 1-'Public order' in s. 3Act.r which are ofiences u1Jder Jrtdian Pe11al Code whether come under
pur,,iew of 'public order'-Representation to Government b;i.· detenu after
casP d(•alt \viii: by Advisory Board-D11ty of Govern1nent to
consider
representation under s. 7.
l"hc petitioner was arrested and detained by an order of the Commis·
sioner of Police, Calcutta under s. 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act,
1950.
According to the grounds of detention supplied to him his acti·
vi ties \Vere prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order'. The petitioners'
case was placed h~forc the Advisory Hoard and on obtaining its opinion
1hc Governor confirmed the order of delenlion.
It was after this that
the petitioner made representations to the State Government.
'fhen he
filed the present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution based on the
follo\l.'ing grounds : (i) 1hat there was a hrcach of s. 7 of the Act inasmuch
as his rcprcsentalions \l.·erc not considered by the Government; (ii) that
the grounds furnished to him mentidned offences under the Indian Penal
Code and these could not he used for the purpose of detention except in
emergencies; (iii) that the grounds did not have any relation to 'public
order'.
HELD: (i) It is obligatory on the Government to deal with the
representations made by the detcnu, but i'l the present case the dctenu
made his representations only after the Advisory Board had dealt with
the matter. The State Govcrnn1ent \l.'as in the process of dealing with his
representation.
In the circumstances it could not he said that there had
been a breach of s. 7 of rhc Acl. (765 E-G]
(ii) The contravention of any la"' alY•ays affects order but before it
can be said to affect public order it must affect the community or the
public at large. [766 Al
Pus/zkar ,\111klrerjee & Ors. v.
Tiu~ Stcte of West Bengal, (1969) 2
S.C.R. 635, applied.
The grounds of detention supplied to the dctenu in the present case
B
c
D
E
F
showed that on one occasion he took part in rioting ~long with associates
G
armed with lathis, iron rods and acid bulbs. On another occasion he took
part in assaulting a constahle on duty.
On a third occasion he and his
associates v.·ere armed with deadly \1.:eapons v.·hich were actually used in
indiscriminately endangering human lives in the locality. (766 C-D]
From, these activities the object of the detenu seems to have been to
te-rrorise the locality and bring the v.·hote machinery of law and order to
a bait.
The conclusion of the detaining authority that the detenu was
H
likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public orde-r
in the future and it \l.'3s nccess;:f"y to prevent him from doing so, was
jusrified. (766 E-FJ
'
I
S. CHAKRABORTY v: COMMR., POLICE (Sikri, J.)
7 63
A
The fact that public sector was affected by an act which was also an
offence under the Indian Penal Code was irrelevant. [766 Fl
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 102 of 1969.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ
in the nature of habeas corpus.
B
Vinoo Bhagat, for the petitioner.
c
D
E
F
G
H
S. P. Mitra, G. S. Chatierjee for Sukumar Basu, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, J.
Thls is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by Shyamal Chakraborty who has been detained under the
Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the
Act). Three grounds have been urged by the learned counsel
why we should issue a writ of habeas corpus directing his
release: ( 1) that the detenu's representation was not considered
by the Government, (2) that the grounds furnished to the detenu
mentioned offences under the Indian Penal Code and cannot be
used for the purpose of detaining the detenu except in emergencies and ( 3) that the grounds do not have any relation to the
maintenance of public order.
Following are the facts as they
emerge from the affidavits on. record.
The detenu was detained by an order No. 3846-D.D. (S)
dated 13th November, 1968 passed by
the Commissioner of
Police, Calcutta in exercise of powers conferred on him by section 3(2) of the Act.
The detenu was arrested on November
13, 1968 and was served with the grounds of detention both in
English and in vernacular on the same day.
On 15th November,
1968, the Commissioner of Police reported the fact of such detention of the petitioner together with the grounds and other particulars having bearing on the necessity of the order to the State
Government.
On 19th November, 1968, the
Governor
was
pleased to approve the said order of detention under section 3 ( 3)
of the Act and on the same day the Governor submitted the report to the Central Government under section 3 ( 4) of the Act
together with grounds and other particulars having bearing on the
necessity of the order.
On 7th December, 1968, his case was
placed before the Advisory Board under section 9 of the Act. On
6th January, 1969, the Advisory Board after consideration of the
materials placed before it was of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner. The petitioner had
not submitted any representation to th.., State Government till then.
By an order dated
8th January,
1969 the Governor was
pleased to confirm the order of detention. It appears that on the
13th January, 1969 and 16th January, 1969 the detenu made
J
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] I S.C.R.
representations.
After the receipt of these representations the
same were sent by the Home Department to the Commissioner of
Police for his report.
On 1st April, 1969 the Commissioner of
Police informed the Home Department that he did not recommend
the release of the petitioner.
But the representations of the petitioner were not received back from the Commissioner of Police
with his Jetter of the 1st April, 1969.
Later on the Commissioner of Police sent back the representation dated 13th January,
1969 to the Home Department.
This Court on 28th March,
1969 issued a notice under Article 32 of the Constitution to the
Commissioner of Police and to the State Government to show
cause why rule nisi should not be issued made returnable three
weeks hence.
On receipt of this notice the State Government
refrained from passing any order on the representation dated 13th
January, 1969.
The representation dated 16th January, 1969
is untraceable, but effort is being made to trace it. According to
the Commissioner of Police it was on the same lines as the representation dated 13th January, 1969.
A
B
c
It is necessary to reproduce the grounds of detention served on o
the detenu and they are in the following terms :-
"You are being detained in pursuance of a detention
order made under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the
Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950) on
the following grounds :
You have been acting in a manner prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order by the commission of
offences of rioting, assault etc. as detailed below :
(1) That on 28-6-68 at about 6 p.m. you along
with your associates being armed with lathis, iron rods,
acid bulbs etc. committed a riot in Kumartuli Park in
course of which you severely assaulted Shri Amal
Krishna Roy of 20A, Abhoy Mitra Street and iron rods,
&cid bulbs etc. were indiscriminately used endangering
human lives.
(2) That on 23-7-68 at about 6.10 p.m. you along
with your associates being armed with lathis, iron rod,
hockey sticks etc. attacked constables Sankar Lal Bose
and Jagdish Singh both of Shyampukur P .S. on Kaliprosad Chakraborty Street near the
Gaudiya Math
who went there to discharge their lawful duties, as a
result of which constable Sankar Lal Bose sustained
bleeding injuries on his person.
(3) That in the night of 3-10-68 between 11.50
p.m. and 1.30 a.m. you along with your associates being
E
F
G
H
' '
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
S. CHAKRABORTY V. COMMR., POLICE (Sikri, ].)
76$
armed with deadly weapons took part in a riot at
Rabindra Sarani from Bug Bazar Street crossing
to
Kumartuli Street crossing in course of which bombs,
brickbats and soda water bottles were indiscriminately
hurled endangering human Jives.
You are hereby informed that you may make a representation to the State Government against the detention order and. that such representation should be
addre~sed to the Assistant Secretary to
the Government of West Bengal,
Home
Department,
Special
Section, Writers' Buildings, Calcutta and forwarded
through the Superintendent of the Jail in which you are
detained as early as possible.
You are also i11formed that under section 10 of the
Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950) the
Advisory Board, shall, if you desire to be heard, hear
you in person and that if you desire to be so heard by
the Advisory Board you should intimate such desire in
your representation to the State Government".
Coming now to the first point raised by the learned counsel
it seems to us that there has been no breach of the provisions of
the Act. This Court has held that it is obligatory on the Government to deal with the representations made by the detenu, but the
facts recited above show that the detenu did not choose to make
a representation before the Advisory Board dealt with the rntter,
and further the State Government was in the process of dealing
with the representation when this Court issued the notice. Moreover, in the representation dated 13th January, 1969, the detenu
barely stated that the grounds were false and that the deten•1 was
a poor man and the family conditions were miserable and he was
living peacefully in the town and had never committed any a;:t
which was manifestly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
or communal harmony. He prayed that "under the circumstances,
I am to request you to kindly produce me before the Advisory
Board and release me."
At that stage it was impossible to produce him befcre the Advisory Board.
The Advisory Board had
already dealt with the matter.
Under these circumstances we are
unable to say that there has been a breach of section 7.
We trust
that the State Government will now immediately deal with the
representation or representations and pass a suitable order.
It will be convenient to deal with the points 2 and 3 mentioned
above together.
It is true, as urged by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, that this Court has consistently held that the
grounds must have relevance to the maintenance of public order,
and that they should not relate merely to the maintenance of
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[I 970J I S.C.R.
order.
It is true, as laid down by this Court, that the contravention of any law always affects order but before it can be said to
affect public order it must affect the community or the public at
large.
As Ramaswami, J.. put it in Pushkar Mukherjee & Ors. v.
The Staie of West Bengal('), '·in this connection we must draw a
line of demarcation between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect the community or injure
the
public
interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a
purely
local significance which primarily injure specific individuals and
only in a secondary sense public interest."
The question which arises is tnis : do the grounds reproduced
above relate merely to maintenance of order or do they relate to
the maintenance of public order? It will be noticed
that the
detenu in each of these cases acted along with associates who were
r.rmed with lathis, iron rods, acid bulbs etc.
It is clearly said in
ground No. I that he committed a riot and indiscriminately used
acid bulbs, iron rods, lathis etc. endanycring human Jives.
This
ground cannot be said to have reference merely to maintenance
of order because it affects the locality and everybody who liv~s in
the locality.
Similarly, in the second ground. he alongwith his
associates prrventcd the police constables from discharging their
lawful duties and thus affected everybody living in the locality.
In ground No. 3, again the whole locality was in danger as
the dctenu and his associates were anned with deadly weapons and
th~se were in fact used for indiscriminately endangering
human
Jives in the locality.
The object of the detenu seems to have been
to terrorise the locality and bring the whole machinery of law and
order to a halt.
We are unable to say that the Commis'',mcr of
Police could not in view of these grounds come to the conclusion
that the detenu was likely to act in a manner prejudicial t.1
the
maintenance of public order in the future and it was necessary to
;irevent him from doing so.
The fact that public order is affected
by an act which was also an offence under the Indian Penal Code
•cems to us to be irrelevant.
In the result the petition fails and is dismissed.
G.C
Petition disn1i\·sed.
(I) [1969; 2 S.C.R. 6J<.
A
B
c
D
E
F