Strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of law in matters relating to personal liberty and freedom of a citizen is necessary, and any violation, even in the slightest measure, may lead to the quashing of the detention order.

M. BK. Singh, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcing the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution and praying for releasing him by setting aside the relevant detention order passed against him under the National Security Act, 1980.

2. We have heard Mr. H. S. Paonam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Ibohal, learned Addl. G. A. appearing on behalf of the Government respondent and Mr. N. Ibotombi, CGSC appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3. We have also perused the materials before the Court.

3. On the basis of the materials before the Court and after hearing the submission of the parties through their respective counsel, the following facts are ascertained. While the petitioner was in police custody in connection with investigation of the FIR case No. 105(11)04 MRG P. S., an order, being No. CRIL/NSA/No. 1/2005 dated 4-5-2005, directing for his detention Under Section 3(2) of the N. S. A., 1980, purportedly with the view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, was issued by the District Magistrate, Ukhrul District. The detention order was communicated to the petitioner on 6-5-2005 at 10.45 a.m. The grounds of detention was furnished to him on 13-5-2005 at 3.35 p.m. On 13-5-2005 the Govt. approved the said detention order and on 17-6-2005, the Government, purportedly in consonance with the opinion expressed by the Advisory Board and in exercise of the powers conferred Under Section 12(1) of the N.S.A., confirmed the said detention order and fixed the period of detention of 12 months from the date of detention.

4. In the present case, the main ground of objection submitted on behalf of the petitioner is that there has been violation of the provisions of Section 8 of the N. S. A. read with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and as such the petitioner is entitled to be released forthwith.

5. It is well settled that the grounds of detention must be communicated to the detenu without avoidable delay. It is only in order to meet the practical exigency of administrative affairs that the Detaining Authority is permitted to communicate the grounds of detention not less than 5 days ordinarily and not later than 10 days if there are exceptional circumstances. If there are any such circumstances, the Detaining Authority is required by Section 8(1) to record its reasons in writing. If any authority is required in respect of the above said well settled position of law, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in A. K. Roy v. Union of India 1982 CriLJ 340 and Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration 1982 CriLJ 1191.

6. In Hem Lall Bhandari v. State of Sikkim 1987 CriLJ 718 after referring to the provisions of Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, held at para 10

10. A bare reading of the section shows that it is obligatory on the detaining officer to communicate to the detenu, the grounds on which the order of detention has been made, promptly. This has to be done as soon as possible and ordinarily not later than 5 days. The detaining authority is permitted to exceed this limitation of 5 days in exceptional circumstances. The grounds of detention, under exceptional circumstances, can be communicated to the detenu within a period not later than 15 days (the period of 15 days is in respect of the State of Punjab and it is only 10 days for the rest of India) from the date of detention but when the detaining authority takes time longer than 5 days he has to record reasons why the grounds of detention could not be communicated within 5 days.

In the same case referred to above, the Supreme Court held at para 12 (only the relevant portion);

12... It is not permissible, in matters relating to the personal liberty and freedom of a citizen, to take either a liberal or a generous view of the lapses on the part of the officers. In mat