The importance of communicating the grounds of detention to the detenu, the timeline for placing the matter before the Advisory Board, and the requirement for impartial consideration of representations by the authorities.

P. G. Agarwal, J.-By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,

the detenu-petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 21.8,99, Annexure A to this petition, passed by the District Magistrate, Kamrup, the respondent No. 4, in exercise of his power conferred under sub-section (2) and (3) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, for short, the Act.

2. On perusal of the order of detention and the records produced before us it is seen that the detention of the detenu in the instant case was made on the basis of a dossier prepared by the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup. It was submitted that the copy of the said dossier was not furnished to the detenu and as such it violates the safeguard given under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. It is well settled that the basic facts and materials which influenced the detaining authority in making the order of detention must be communicated to the detenu. During the course of the arguments, the learned Govt Advocate, Assam produced the record to show that the copy of the dossier was furnished to the detenu along with the order of detention and the grounds of detention and these were duly received by the detenu and there is an acknowledgment also to that effect. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed for the above submission.

3. Shri N. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case there is contravention of the provision of section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980, for short, the Act. Section 10 of the said Act reads as follows:

“10. Reference to Advisory Boards: Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, in every case where a detention order has been made under this Act, the appropriate Govt shall, within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted by it under section 9, the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order, and in case where the order has been made by an officer mentioned in sub-section (3) of section 3, also the report by such officer under sub-section (4) of that section.”

It is stated that the order of detention was passed on 21.8.99 and as required under section 10 of the Act the matter was placed before the Advisory Board on 7.9.99. However, the representation submitted by the detenu on 6.9.99 was not forwarded or sent to the Advisory Board as required under section 10 of the Act. The representation was sent to the Advisory Board only on 22.9.99. Learned Govt Advocate has submitted that the representation was duly considered by the Advisory Board and it approved the order of detention. It is submitted on behalf of the detenu that although the order of detention was passed on 21.8.99 and the representation was filed on 6.9.99 the same was forwarded to the Advisory Board on 22.9.99, ie after more than 3 (three) weeks from the date of detention. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the two decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Sher Mohammad vs. State of West Bengal, (1975) 2 SCC 2 and in the case of Abdul Ladf Abdul Waheb vs. BK Jha & another, (1987) 2 SCC 22. In the case of Abdul Latif (supra), the Apex Court held :

“In a Habeas Corpus proceeding, it is not a sufficient answer to say that the procedural requirements of the Constitution and the statute have been complied with before the date of hearing and therefore, the detention should be upheld. The procedural requirements are the only safeguards available to a detenu since the Court is not expected to go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The procedural requirements are, therefore, to be strictly complied with if any value is to be Attached to the liberty of the subject and the constitutional rights guaranteed to him in that regard. If a reference to an Advisory Board is to be made within three weeks, it is no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document