The function entrusted to the Government under Rule 30-A (9) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, to review and decide on the continuation of detention is quasi judicial in nature, and therefore, the rules of natural justice must be complied with.

Headnote:
DEFENCE OF INDIA ACT - RULE 30-A (9) - REVIEW OF DETENTION ORDER - QUASI JUDICIAL FUNCTION - RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - DISCLOSURE OF MATERIALS - PRIVILEGE - ART. 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION - PREVENTION OF DETENTION ACT - REVIEW OF DETENTION ORDER - QUASI JUDICIAL FUNCTION - RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - DISCLOSURE OF MATERIALS - PRIVILEGE.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, P. L. Lakhanpal, was detained under Rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, and was subsequently served with an order, dated June 11, 1966, passed by the Central Government under Rule 30-A (9) of the said Rules, which stated that his detention should continue. The petitioner challenged the validity of both orders, contending that they were ultra vires the Defence of India Act, that he was denied the right to make a representation, that the orders were in breach of Section 44 of the Act, and that they were made in mala fide exercise of power.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the function entrusted to the Government under Rule 30-A (9) to review and decide on the continuation of detention is quasi judicial in nature, and therefore, the rules of natural justice must be complied with. The Court found that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to represent his case or to correct or contradict the evidence on which the Government relied in making the decision to continue his detention, and therefore, the order of continuation of detention was illegal and had to be quashed.
Issues: 1. Whether the function entrusted to the Government under Rule 30-A (9) to review and decide on the continuation of detention is quasi judicial in nature? 2. Whether the petitioner was given an opportunity to represent his case or to correct or contradict the evidence on which the Government relied in making the decision to continue his detention?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the function entrusted to the Government under Rule 30-A (9) to review and decide on the continuation of detention is quasi judicial in nature because: (a) It involves a determination of the rights of an individual, namely, the right to personal liberty. (b) It is to be exercised on the basis of evidence and materials placed before the Government. (c) It requires the Government to weigh the evidence and come to an objective decision. (d) The decision has serious consequences for the individual concerned. 2. The Court found that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to represent his case or to correct or contradict the evidence on which the Government relied in making the decision to continue his detention. This was a breach of the rules of natural justice, which require that a person whose rights are being determined must be given an opportunity to be heard.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, quashed the order of continuation of detention, and directed the petitioner to be set free forthwith.

Judgement

SHELAT, J. : The petitioner was arrested by an order, dated December 10, 1965 under R. 30 (1) (b) of the Defence India Rules, 1962 and was detained in Central Jail, Tehar. New Delhi. On the 24th December 1965, he filed writ petition No. 47 of 1966 in this Court challenging his detention, inter alia, on the grounds that (1) Rule 30 (1) (b) was ultra vires S. 3 (2) (15) (i) of the Defence of India Act, (2) that R. 23 of the defence of India (Delhi Detenues) Rules, 1964 gave him a right to make a representation by providing review of the said detention order and that his said right was disregarded by his having been prevented from making such representation (3) that the said order was in breach of S. 44 of the Act, and (4) that it was made in mala fide exercise of power. That petition was dismissed on April, 19, 1966. The petitioner was thereafter served with an order, dated June 11, 1966 passed by the Central Government under R. 30-A (9) of the said Rules. The said order, inter alia, stated that " the said detention order has been reviewed by the Central Government and upon such review the Central Government hereby decides that Shri P. L. Lakhanpal should continue to be detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the Defence of India and Civil Defence." The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.137 of 1966 challenging the validity of the said original order of detention and the order, dated June 11, 1966. Rule 30-A (9) provides as follows:_

"Every detention order made by the Central Government or the State Government shall be reviewed at intervals of not more than six months by the Government who made the order and upon such review that Government shall decide whether the order should be continued or cancelled." That petition also was dismissed by judgment, dated September 21, 1966. It appears that the petitioner thereafter addressed certain letters and sent representations to the Home Ministry stating therein that he was now clearly of the opinion that the demand for plebiscite in Kashmir by Pakistan had become untenable as a result of certain events having taken place, that the Tashkent declaration had altered relations between Pakistan and India, that the said declaration and other events which had since taken place had completely changed the complexion of Pakistan s stand on Kashmir and that he was also now of the opinion that the application of some of the provisions of the Indian Constitution to Kashmir was correct. He also represented that there were more pressing problems in the country requiring · his attention than the question of Kashmir and the relations between the two countries on that question. By an order, dated the. 2nd December 1966, the Government of India directed the further detention of the petitioner stating therein that "the said detention order has been further reviewed by the Central Government and upon such review the Central Government hereby decides that the order for the detention of the said Shri P. L. Lakhanpal should be continued. The present petition challenges the validity of this order.

2. The petitioner contended:-

(i) That the said order is a mechanical and casual order passed without taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances. Relevant under R. 30 (1) (b) and R. .30-A (9).

(ii) That it is passed in utter disregard of the duty of the Government to act judicially implicit in the power conferred on it under R. 30-A (9) to continue detention both the function to review and the decision thereon being judicial or quasi judicial.

(iii) That the said order is ultra vires S. 44 of the Act whereunder the Government is required to decide whether detention is the minimum action necessary on the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) That the said order is mala fide and illegal being contrary to the policy statements made on behalf of the Government in Parliament from time to time to restrict the operation of the Act and the Rules.

(a) for purposes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1967 Supreme(SC) 74

The function entrusted to the Government under Rule 30-A (9) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, to review and decide on the continuation of detention is quasi judicial in nature, and therefore, the rules of natural justice must be complied with.

Cases Referred (9)