Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J. :- The petitioner, Sk. Salim, challenges by this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order was passed on June 13, 1972 avowedly with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The particulars furnished to the petitioner refer to two incidents of theft dated January 31 and February 23, 1972. The former relates to a theft of underground copper cables and the latter to a theft of A. C. S. R. Conductors. The particulars further mention that on February 24, 1972 the petitioner and two of his named associates were found in possession of 30 K. Gs. of stolen A. C. S. R. Conductors.

2. Section 3 (1) of the Act empowers the Central Government and the State Government to pass orders of detention for the reasons therein mentioned. Section 3 (2) confers power on District Magistrates, specially empowered Additional District Magistrates and Commissioners of Police to pass orders of detention for reasons specified therein. If an order of detention is passed by any of these officers,

"he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government to which he is subordinate together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as in his opinion have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof unless in the meantime it has been approved by the State Government :"

That is the clear mandate of S. 3 (3).

3. The District Magistrate, in the instant case, made the detention order on June 13, 1972 and on the 15th he reported the fact of making the order to the State Government. The question for consideration, which has been argued with some fervor by the learned counsel appearing amicus curiae for the petitioner, is whether the District Magistrate can be said to have reported the making of the order "forthwith" as required by Section 3 (3).

4. Laws of preventive detention by which subjects are deprived of their personal liberty without the safeguards available in a judicial trial ought to be construed with the greatest strictness. Courts must therefore be vigilant to ensure that the detenu is not deprived of the modicum of rights and safeguards which the preventive law itself affords to him. The Maintenance of Internal Security Act contains what is evidently thought to be a scheme of checks and counter-checks by which the propriety or necessity of a detention order may at various stages be examined by various authorities. If an order of detention is made by a District Magistrate or a specially empowered Additional District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, he is required by Section 3 (3) to report "forthwith" to the State Government about the making of the order. The order cannot remain in force for more than 12 days or in the circumstances mentioned in the Proviso to Section 3 (3), for more than 22 days unless in the meantime it has been approved by the State Government. If the order is made or approved by the State Government it must under Section 3 (4) report the fact to the Central Government within 7 days. By Section 10, save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, the appropriate Government shall within 30 days from the date of detention under the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 the grounds on which the order has been made, the representation if any made by the detenu and in case where the order has been made by any of the officers specified under Section 3 (2), the report made by the officer under Section 3 (3). Section 11 (l) requires the Advisory Board to submit its report to the appropriate Government within 10 weeks from the date of detention. This time-schedule, evolved in order obviously to provide an expeditious opportunity at different leve