2001(3) Crimes 131 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
D.P. Mohapatra & Ruma Pal, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. —Appellants
versus
Manish Bahal @ Nishu —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1299 of 2000)
Decided on 9-7-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Bhan, Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri and Mr. D.S. Mahra, ­Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Harjinder Singh, Mr. Naveen Malhotra and Ms. Vandana Sharma, Advocates.

Important point
The High Court was not right in holding that there was no independent consideration of the representation submitted by the detenu to the Lt. Governor of Delhi. But since about five months have passed after the judgment of the High Court was delivered, the Apex Court after allow­ing the ­appeal, left it open to the detaining authority to decide whether the detenu should be taken in detention again to complete the unexpired period of detention.

Headnote:National Security Act, 1980—Section 3(2)—Detention order under for 12 months w.e.f. 18.5.1999—High Court quashing in writ jurisdiction—Appeal against under Article 136 of Constitution—High Court quashing detention order solely on ground that the Lt. Governor of Delhi rejected the representation of the detenu taking into consid­eration the Report submitted by the Advisory Board and, therefore, did not consider the representation independently—Factually Lt. Governor of Delhi had rejected the representation not only on Report of Adviso­ry Board but also on independent consideration of the representation—Effect—Appeal allowed but as to months elapsed since quashment by High Court, liberty given to detaining authority to decide whether detenu should be taken in detention to complete the unexpired period of 12 months detention—Case law referred—[Cross Ref.: National Security Act, 1980—Sections 3, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12—Constitution of India—Articles 21 and 22(4) and (5)].

       Held : The question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court is right in holding that there was no independent consideration of the representation submitted by the detenu by the Lt. Governor. (Para 4)

       From the conspectus of the views taken in the decisions discussed above, it is clear to us that what this Court has consis­tently laid strees upon is, prompt consideration and expeditious disposal of representations of the detenu received by the State Government at any stage of the proceeding. The view has been taken in the light of Article 22(4) and (5) of the Constitution. We do not find any support for the extreme view taken by the High Court in the case that merely because the report of the Advisory Board was placed before the Detain­ing Authority (Lt. Governor) along with other papers for disposal of the representation made by the detenu there was no independent consid­eration of the same by the authority. In the scheme of things under the Act, the report of the Advisory Board is not an irrelevant materi­al in the exercise. The specific question that arises for consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case on hand the order passed by the Lt. Governor rejecting the representation of the detenu - respond­ent can be held to have been vitiated on the ground that it was not passed on independent consideration. It is relevant to make it clear that the High Court has not recorded any finding that there was delay or callousness or bureaucratic lethargy on the part of the State Government in dealing with the representation of the respondent or that the Lt. Governor had kept the representation submitted before him awaiting the report of the Advisory Board. No finding is also recorded by the High Court that the Lt. Governor solely depended on or relied upon the report of the Advisory Board for passing the order rejecting the representation. It has also not been found that the report of the Advisory Board was the only material placed before the Lt. Governor while submitting the representation for his consideration. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court committed error in holding that the order of the Lt. Governor rejecting the represen­tation of the detenu was not based on his independent consideration. At the cost of repetition we may state that the High Court drew such an inference solely on the ground that the report of the Advisory Board was also placed before the Lt. Governor while considering the representation of the respondent. It is relevant to note here that the observations made by the Constitution Bench in the case of K.M. Abdul­la Kunhi [1991(1) SCC 476] and other decisions noted earlier were made with a view to bring home the importance of expeditious consideration and disposal of representation of a detenu under the preventive detention laws in the light of the right vested in the detenu under Articles 22(4) and (5) of the Constitution. On the discussions made and the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, we are constrained to hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 14.12.1999 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 809/99 is set aside. Since about five months have elapsed after the judgment of the High Court was delivered, we leave it open to the detaining authority to decide whether the respondent should be taken in detention to complete the unexpired period of detention. (Paras 24, 25 and 26)