Back
2010 (6) Supreme 692
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Smt. Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi — Appellant
versus
State of Manipur and Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1849 of 2010
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2555 of 2010)
Decided on : 27-9-2010
Judicial review-Judicial review, is not an appeal from a decision but review of the manner in which the decision was made- The purpose of review is to ensure that the individual receives a fair treatment. (Para 15)
Detention Order- Reasonable basis for -There must be a reasonable basis for the detention order, and there must be material to support the same- The Court is entitled to scrutinize the material relied upon by the Authority in coming to its conclusion, and accordingly determine if there is an objective basis for the subjective satisfaction- The subjective satisfaction must be two fold- The detaining authority must be satisfied that the person to be detained is likely to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and the authority must be further satisfied that it is necessary to detain the said person in order to prevent from so acting- If one of the grounds or reasons which lead to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority under NS Act, is non-existent or misconceived or irrelevant, the order of detention would be invalid. (Paras 20 to 22)
Facts of the Case :
A Detention Order was passed by District Magistrate, Imphal West District, Manipur, against appellant’s husband, Editor of a Manipuri Daily evening paper named ‘Paojel’ herein in the instant case. Habeas corpus petition thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Grounds on which detention order was passed had no probative value and were extraneous to the scope, purpose and the object of the National Security Act. So far as the documents on which reliance was placed, none of Said documents provided any reasonable basis for passing detention order. The primary reliance had been on the accused’s own statement made to an Investigating Officer. This could not be said to be sufficient to form the subjective satisfaction of detaining Authority. Statements under Section 161,Cr.P.C. cannot be taken as sufficient grounds in the absence of any supportive or corroborating grounds. None of the other documents substantiated involvement of detenu in unlawful activities as alleged in the detention order.Hence , it was clear that there was no pertinent or relevant material on the basis of which, the detention order could be passed.Apart from that there was a delay of 7 days, in forwarding representation of detenu to the Central Government. No explanation of the reasons for this delay was given by respondents. Impugned order of High Court and order of detention passed by detaining authority being unsustainable were set aside. Appeal was allowed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
H.L. Dattu, J. —
1) Leave granted.
2) By our order dated 14.09.2010, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, we had directed the release of the detenu, since we were satisfied that the appellant prima- facie had made out a case for release of the detenu. Now we give our reasons for allowing this appeal in support of our pre-emptory order.
3) Here is an unfortunate case involving a person who ought not to have been detained under preventive detention and have his liberty curtailed by virtue of his incarceration under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter “NS Act”).
4) Individual liberty is a cherished right, one of the most valuable Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the citizens of this Country. On “liberty”, William Shakespeare, the great play writer, has observed that “a man is master of his liberty”. Benjamin Franklin goes even further and says that “any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both”. The importance of protecting liberty and freedom is explained by the famous lawyer Clarence Darrow as “you can protect your liberties in this world only by protecting the other man’s freedom; you can be free only if I am free.” In India, the utmost importance is given to life and personal liberty of an individual, since we believe personal liberty is the paramount essential to human dignity and human happiness. The Constitution of India protects the liberty of an individual. Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. In matters of preventive detention such as this, as there is deprivation of liberty without trial, and subsequent safeguards are provided in Article 22 of the Constitution. They are, when any person is detained pursuant to an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order is required to communicate the grounds on the basis of which, the order has been made and give him an opportunity to make a representation against the order as soon as possible. It thus, cannot be doubted that the Constitutional framework envisages protection of liberty as essential, and makes the circumstances under which it can be deprived.
5) The appellant is the wife of Mr. Ranjit Oinamcha @ Oinam Ranjit Singh, who is the detenu under the National Security Act. She is questioning the detention order dated 24/09/2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West District, Manipur, against which, a challenge was made in the form of a habeas corpus petition in the Gauhati High Court (Imphal Bench) in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 111/2009. By an order dated 18/02/2010, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed this appeal.
6) The facts of this case, in a nutshell, are that the detenu was the Editor of a Manipuri Daily evening paper named ‘Paojel’, having its printing press at Keisamthing Top Leirak, Manipur. The assertions and allegations leading to his detention, as stated in the Grounds of Detention order passed by the District Magistrate dated 28/09/2009, are that the detenu could not get enough money from his press to maintain it or support his family, particularly due to the high rates of essential commodities in Manipur. Therefore, in 2003, he contacted Mr. Irom Priyobarta Singh @ Naocha with the intention of earning money without labour. From July 2003, he was in touch with Mr. Ratan @ Inao @ N. Ibochouba Singh, who was the Finance in-Charge of the United National Liberation Front (UNLF), Imphal West, after discussion with whom he decided to get involved in extorting money from contractors and engineers of Public Health Engineering Department (“PHED” for short) and Forest Department of Manipur Government by delivering demand letters which he printed in his own press. He and Mr. Irom Priyobarta Singh were to receive a 10% share of
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
