Back
2001 Supreme(Del) 134
High Court Of Delhi
VINOD KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 536 of 2000
Decided On : 02/05/2001
Harjinder Singh, MUKTA GUPTA, Priya Saxena, YOGESH SAXENA
The detaining authority is not required to disclose all evidence and the non-disclosure of certain materials does not invalidate the detention order.
Headnote:
National Security Act - Challenge to Detention Order - D. P. Act, 1978, National Security Act, 1980 - 3 (5) National Security Act, 1980
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the detention order passed by the Government of N. C. T. under the National Security Act, 1980. The petitioner had a history of criminal activities and terrorizing people, leading to the detention order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was valid and in accordance with the National Security Act, 1980 and the Constitution.
Issues: The issues included the petitioner's challenge to the detention order, the consideration of uncommunicated materials by the detaining authority, and the delay in considering the petitioner's representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the detaining authority was not required to disclose all evidence and that the non-disclosure of certain materials did not invalidate the detention order. The court also found that the delay in considering the petitioner's representation was not adequately explained.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the detention order.
( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the detention order passed by the Government of n. C. T. under the National Security Act, 1980. Before introducing the grounds of challenge in the writ petition it would be convenient for the appreciation of the case to notice a few facts. The petitioner has been indulging himself in activities which are criminal in nature and has been terrorising people with reference to the submission of tenders to the different authorities including M. C. D. Taking into account the activities of the petitioner, on 1/6/1998 an order u/s 47 of the D. P. Act, 1978 was passed. Inspite of the surveillance by the police the petitioner continued with his activities and, therefore, the Government had to resort to the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980. An order of detention was passed on 8/6/1999 by the Commissioner of Police. On 11/6/1999 the petitioner made a representation to this Court. On 15/6/1999 the government of N. C. T. approved the order of Commissioner dated 8/6/1999 U/s 3 (5) national Security Act, 1980. On 16/6/1999 a report was submitted by Govt. of N. C. T. to the Central Government. That was received by the Central Government on 21/6/1999. The Central Government after considering all the facts decided that no case has been made for interference and that decision was taken on 22/6/1999. On 22/6/1999 the petitioner sent his representation to the Central Government. On 22/6/1999 the petitioner sent his representation to the Central Government. On 28/6/1999 the petitioner made a representation to the Lt. Governor. That representation was received by the Central Government on 8/7/1999. On 12/7/1999 the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs with the comments put up the matter before the Joint Secretary. On 12/7/1999 the Joint Secretary with the comments put up before the Minister of State (Home ). On 13/7/1999 the Minister of State (Home) rejected the case of the petitioner after considering all the relevant aspects. The petitioner was informed of the decision of the Central Government on 14/7/1999.
( 2 ) THEREUPON the petitioner filed the Cri. Writ No. 1186/99 in this Court without surrendering to the custody. The petitioner had been avoiding and was trying to challenge the detention order.
( 3 ) ON 8. 12. 1999 Cri. W. No. 1186/99 was dismissed by this Court.
( 4 ) THE petitioner took up the matter to the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave petition. On 11/2/2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
( 5 ) THE petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 329/95 u/s 506/34indian Penal Code P. S. Roop Nagar. The petitioner getting the bail cancelled surrendered before Court on 17/2/2000. On 14/3/2000 the detention order was served upon the petitioner. On 3/4/2000 the petitioner made a representation to the Advisory Board. By letter dated 5/4/2000 the jail Authorities sent copies to Deputy Secretary (Home), Govt. of N. C. T. , Commissioner of Police and the Central Government. On 13/4/2000 the Government of N. C. T. rejected the representation. The Commissioner of Police rejected the representation on 18/4/2000. On 25/4/2000 the petitioner again made a representation to the central Government. The Central Government rejected the representation dated 3/4/2000 on 3/5/2000. On 11/5/2000 the Govt. of N. C. T. in exercise of power conferred u/s 12 (1) of the National Security Act, 1980 passed order of confirmation of the detention order. On 3/7/2000 the above writ petition was presented in this court. The order of detention dated 8/6/1999 reads as under:-
"whereas, I, V. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Delhi am satisfied that with a view to prevent Sh. Vinod Kumar S/o Chhattar Singh R/o 5797/7, New chandrawal; Delhi aged about 33 years from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order directing that Sh. Vinod Kumar be detained. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred vide sub-section (2) of the Secti
