Gopal Mondal vs State Of West Bengal
- SCC(1975) 2 SCC 590
- AIRAIR 1975 SC 1807
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The word "forthwith" in Section 3(3) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, meaning the detaining authority must report to the State Government, does not require report to be made on the same day as the detention order, but rather as soon as possible; where some delay occurs, it is not a violation of this mandatory requirement if the delay is reasonably explained by factual circumstances such as administrative necessity and weekend holidays. Where grounds of detention are served on a detenu in his own language with explanation, and the detaining authority's counter-affidavit states there is no material difference between the grounds originally formulated and those served on the detenu, the detenu's unsubstantiated claim of material difference in a petition will not be accepted without supporting evidence.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. The petitioner has challenged his detention made against him by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas under Section 3(1)(2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The Order of detention was made on August 23, 1973. The petitioner was arrested on 24th August, 1973. Grounds of detention were served on him and a report was made to the State Government by the District Magistrate on August 27, 1973. Other formalities under the law were complied with thereafter. Learned Counsel for the petitioner who assisted the Court as amicus curiae submitted two points: (i) that according to the statement of the petitioner in his petition sent from jail, the grounds of detention served on him in Bengali language were materially different from those written originally in English; and (ii) that the District Magistrate reported the matter to the State Government on August 27, 1973, three days later and not 'forthwith as required by Section 3(3) of the Act 2.
2. We do not find any substance in either of the points urged on behalf of the petitioner. In the Counter affidavit it is stated that there was not difference in the grounds served on the petitioner and the grounds which were the basis of the Order made by the District Magistrate. Further, the grounds were explained to the detenu in his language.
3. The word 'forthwith' has been interpreted to mean "as soon as possible; without any delay." If there is some delay which is reasonably explained, then there is no violation of the mandatory requirement of the law. In the counter it has been explained that as many as seven detention Orders were made by the District Magistrate on 23rd August, 1973. Reports had to be typed in all those cases and they were typed on 24th and 25th August. 26th August was a Sunday and therefore the report could not be sent earlier than 27th. We are satisfied that, on the facts stated in the counter, the report was sent forthwith, as the apparent delay of three days has been satisfactorily explained.
4. We do not find any other infirmity in the detention of the petitioner. The application is therefore dismissed and the rule discharged.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free