Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND K.K. MATHEW, JJ.
Prof. Khaidem Ibocha Singh etc. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Manipur (In all the Petitions), Respondent.
Writ Petns. Nos. 289 to 295 of 1971, D/- 8-10-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. C. Manchanda, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. O. P. Verma, Advocate with him), (Petitioners were also present), for Petitioners (In all the Petitions): Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate, for Respondent (In all the Petitions).
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 and 22 (5) - Orissa Preventive Detention Act, 1970 – Section 3 (1), (2), 7 (1), 3 (3) and 9 - Preventive Detention Act, 1950 - Maintenance of Public Order - Validity of Orders of Detention - Whether there has been any delay in disposing of representation made by petitioners, and if so, whether that delay has been properly explained by State - Whether enquiry made by Sub-Deputy Collector was oral or by a letter - Whether there is a delay in disposing of representation made by a detenu - Whether that delay has been properly explained by State - Whether appropriate Government has disposed of case as expeditiously as possible – Held, First, appropriate authority is bound to give an opportunity to detenu to make a representation and to consider representation of detenu as early as possible - Secondly, consideration of representation of detenu by appropriate authority is entirely independent of any action by Advisory Board including consideration of representation of detenu by Advisory Board - Thirdly, there should not be any delay in matter of consideration - It is true that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to measure of time taken by appropriate authority for consideration but it has to be remembered that Government has to be vigilant in governance of citizens - If however Government will not release detenu Government will send case along with detenu s representation to Advisory Board - If thereafter Advisory Board will express an opinion in favour of release of detenu Government will release detenu - If Advisory Board will express any opinion against release of detenu, Government may still exercise power to release detenu - Finally, it was held that Government was guilty of infraction of constitutional provisions by an inordinate delay in consideration of representation and that there was no explanation offered for inordinate delay - Ultimately, detenu was directed to be set at liberty – Court have already held that there is an unexplained delay of 17 days between date when representation was received by Administrator, and when latter considered representation and passed order rejecting same - If that is so, without anything more, that circumstance by itself is a sufficient ground for holding that orders of detention of petitioners are illegal and they are entitled to be released – Court accordingly hold that detention of petitioners is illegal and make rule issued in all these writ petitions absolute and direct release of petitioners forthwith unless they are required in connection with any other case - Rule made absolute.
Judgment
VAIDIALINGAM, J.: (The seven petitioners in these writ petitions under Art, 32 of the Constitution, challenge the validity of the orders of detention dated January 31, 1971 passed against each of them by the District Magistrate, Manipur (Central) under sub-s. (2) of S.3 read with sub-section (1) of the Orissa Preventive Detention Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as extended to Manipur. They seek relief for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus and for directions being issued to the respondent - the State of Manipur to release them from custody.
2. The orders of detention state that they have been passed with a view to preventing the petitioners from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The petitioners, in consequence of these orders, were taken into custody and detained. Along with the petitioners another person, Prof. Nandlal Sharma, was also detained. The grounds of detention, as required by S. 7 (1) of the Act were furnished to the detenus on the same day. The order of detention passed against Prof. Nandlal Sharma was later on revoked by the Lt. Governor and he was released.
3. The petitioners in Writ petition Nos. 289, 290, 291 and 295 of 1971 are either Masters of Arts (in Political Science) or Masters of Arts, Education and are all Professors of Colleges of Moirang or Imphal. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 294 of 1971 holds M.Sc, B.Ed., degrees and is an Assistant Head Master in a High School in Imphal. The educational qualifications of the petitioner in Writ Petitions Nos. 292 and 293 are not clear from the records but they claim to be social workers.
4. The District Magistrate made the necessary report to the Administrator under sub-section (3) of S. 3 on February 10, 1971, the Administrator under S. 3 (3) approved the orders of detention passed by the District Magistrate on January 31, 1971 and the orders of approval were also communicated to the detenus.
5. All the petitioners made a joint representation on March 1, 1971, which was received by the Government on March 3, 1971. In the representation the petitioners had raised various grounds of attack against the order of detention. They had also very elaborately dealt with them and very strenuously refuted the various allegations contained in the grounds served on them, on the basis of which the orders of detention had been passed. The administrator considered the representation received from the detenus and rejected the same on March 20, 1971. The petitioners were informed about the rejection of the representation by communication dated March 22, 1971. The cases of the petitioners were refereed to the Advisory Board on February 16, 1971 as required under S. 9 of the Act. The Advisory Board considered the matter and sent its report on April 18, 1971 expressing its opinion that the detention of the petitioners was justified. We may mention at this stage that the various dates given above are all taken from the counter-affidavit filed by the Secretary to the Government of Manipur, on behalf of the respondent. We are mentioning this aspect because there is a slight discrepancy in the dates given by the petitioners. That is why we have chosen to adopt the dates given on behalf of the State itself.
6. On behalf of the petitioners Mr. S. C. Manchanda, has raised various grounds of attack against the orders of detention passed by the State Government. The counsel very strenuously urged that the matters mentioned in the grounds furnished to the petitioners are absolutely false. According to him the petitioners are all educated persons and that they have been only writing articles pleading for improving the lot of the people of Manipur and for giving due recognition to the hopes and aspirations of the people of Manipur. The counsel has also urged that the grounds of detention are all vague and it was not possible for the detenus to make any effective representation against such vague allegations. The counsel further urged that i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
