It is the date of the revocation order and not the date of the original order of detention that is referred to, the Bench said.
The Supreme Court, in Ananth Singh vs State of Bihar, has held that a second detention order under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, can only be passed on fresh grounds that arise after the order of revocation.
Restating the dictum in Hadibandhu Das vs District Magistrate, Cuttack & Another, a bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar observed that the expression “revocation” is not to be narrowly construed and would include any detention order, whether legal or illegal; and whether it has lapsed by time or has otherwise not complied with statutory requirements, which would include technical defects.
The court rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the state that ‘fresh facts’ should have arisen after the date of the first order of detention, and need not necessarily after the order of revocation.
“The literal language of Section 23(2) leads only to the conclusion that it is the date of the revocation order and not the date of the original order of detention that is referred to,” it said.
It was contended, relying on a constitution bench judgment in Jagdev Singh vs State of Jammu & Kashmir, that if a detention order fails because of technical defects, the selfsame grounds can always be utilised in the second detention order. But the court said in that judgment, it was stated that nothing barred the government from passing a fresh order of detention on the same facts, regard being had to the language of the Defence of India Rules which did not contain any bar to the passing of a second detention order on the same facts.
Read the Judgment here.