1995 Supreme(Raj) 739
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
N.L.Tibrewal, Y.R.Meena, JJ.
Pushpendra Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 5925 of 94
Decided On : 20-02-1995
Unexplained delay in passing a detention order and in deciding a representation made by a detenu, as well as the non-supply of certain documents to the detenu, can vitiate the detention order and render it illegal.
Headnote:
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT - DETENTION - PUBLIC ORDER - DELAY IN PASSING DETENTION ORDER - REPRESENTATION - SUPPLY OF MATERIAL - RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION - VALIDITY OF DETENTION ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student of Civil Engineering, was detained under the National Security Act (NSA) for his alleged involvement in various criminal cases, including damage to public property, throwing country-made bombs, and assault. The petitioner challenged the detention order, arguing that the detaining authority failed to apply its mind, did not consider all relevant material, and violated his right to effective representation by not supplying him with all the documents relied upon in the detention order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detaining authority had considered the material placed before it and had applied its mind in passing the detention order. However, the court held that the delay of over a year between the last incident attributed to the petitioner and the passing of the detention order was unexplained and vitiated the order. The court also found that the delay in deciding the petitioner's representation was inordinate and rendered the detention illegal. Additionally, the court held that the non-supply of certain documents to the petitioner, such as statements recorded during investigation, affected his right to effective representation.
Issues: 1. Whether the detaining authority had applied its mind and considered all relevant material before passing the detention order? 2. Whether the delay in passing the detention order and in deciding the petitioner's representation vitiated the order? 3. Whether the non-supply of certain documents to the petitioner affected his right to effective representation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the detaining authority had applied its mind and considered the material placed before it, as there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. 2. The court held that the delay of over a year between the last incident attributed to the petitioner and the passing of the detention order was unexplained and vitiated the order. The court also held that the delay in deciding the petitioner's representation was inordinate and rendered the detention illegal. 3. The court held that the non-supply of certain documents to the petitioner, such as statements recorded during investigation, affected his right to effective representation.
Final Decision: The court quashed the detention order and directed the detaining authority to release the petitioner forthwith.
JUDGMENT
1. - By this habeas corpus petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 10.8.1994 and prayed that detention order dated 10.8.94 (Ann. 2) be quashed and Government be directed to release the detenu immediately.
2. The petitioner is a resident of Nagla Kumha, District Bharatpur. He has been detained in District Jail, Bharatpur under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NSA'). This petition is filed through the father of detenu Shri Deewan Singh. In the petition, it is alleged that petitioner is a student of IInd year Civil Engineering in Government Polytechnic College, Bharatpur and he is facing criminal trial in some cases registered against him. All these cases are involving petty offences except one or two. Therefore, in no way, his cases are connected with disturbance of 'public orders.
3. Non-petitioner No. 4 Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur has submitted a report to District Magistrate, Bharatpur non-petitioner No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'detaining authority') to detain the petitioner under the NSA. Along with the report, copies of the FIRs, charge- sheets were submitted before the detaining authority. On 10th Aug., 1994, the detaining authority, after considering the material submitted to him passed the detention order and directed to detain the petitioner under sub-sec. (2) of Section 3 of the NSA. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner on 11th Aug., 1994.
4. The State Government non-petitioner No. 1 has approved the detention order Annexure-2 under sub-sec. (4) of Section 3 of the NSA vide its order dated 12th Aug., 1994 and communicated this order to the petitioner detenu in jail. The petitioner through his father Deewan Singh submitted a representation by registered post to His Excellency the President of India on 6th Sept., 94 against his illegal detention. The representation has been received in the Secretariat of His Excellency the President of India but no reply has been received by the petitioner detenu nor he has been released.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Gupta has submitted that detaining authority has failed to apply its mind in accordance with law. There is nothing on record to show that the activities of the petitioner are in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He further submitted that detaining authority non-petitioner No. 3 has failed to supply all material available on record. Therefore, the petitioner could not make effective representation. Even the entire material was not made available to detaining authority, therefore, the detention order has been passed without application of mind and objective satisfaction. The Central Government was not informed within 7 days as required by the provisions under sub-sec. (5) of Section 3 of the NSA. Lastly, he submitted that the detaining authority has violated the provisions of Section 8 of the NSA.
6. In reply, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate Mr. Yadav has submitted that entire material was sent to the detaining authority along with the report including the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation. Therefore, it cannot be said that detention order was passed without considering the material on record. He also pointed out that grounds of detention were served on the date of detention itself i.e. 10.8.94 and not on 11.8.94. He also pointed out that representation sent by Shri Deewan Singh received in the Central Secretariat on 9.9.94 and a copy of that receipt has been received in the office of detaining authority on 29.9.94. He further submitted that the criminal actions of the petitioner detenu had disturbed the public order of Bharatpur, therefore, it has become necessary to detain him under the NSA. It has also been submitted that all the documents including the statements recorded during investigation, in pending cases, have been supplied. Mr. Yadav further submitted that due to fear in common public, witnesses do
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
