Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Piyush Agrawal, JJ.
Kali Prasad @ Pandit Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Others – Respondents
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. - 806 of 2020
Decided On : 27-08-2021
National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3(2) - Quash of Detention order - Seeking direction to respondents to release petitioner forthwith from detention U/s 3(3) of Act, 1980 - Petitioner before this Court, as has also been noted in order; is that delay of 57 days in deciding representation by respondent no.1 is unexplained and therefore further detention of petitioner is wholly illegal and unwarranted and consequently writ petition should be allowed.
Finding of the court : Once a representation is made, detenu is entitled to representation being dealt with expeditiously and if there is some ex facie delay, obligation is on State to explain that delay by filing a proper counter affidavit and the Court should insist that each day's delay must be explained - Respondents have not caused undue delay in deciding representation of petitioner. Both said respondents well explained time taken in deciding representation - Preventive detention no offence is proved nor any charge is formulated and justification of such detention is suspicion or reasonability. There is no criminal conviction in matters of preventive detention which can only be warranted by legal evidence. Therefore, preventive justice requires an action to be taken to prevent apprehended objectionable activity, but at the same time greatest human freedoms i.e. personal liberty of a person is deprived. Therefore law of preventive detention is construed strictly and a meticulous compliance with procedural safeguard, however, technical, is mandatory. Therefore, preventive detention is also described as “jurisdiction of suspicion - Government has acted promptly in prevailing situation and also looking into urgency of situation of detenu being detained in jail.
Result : Writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
1. Heard Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Chandrakesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and Sri Ajay Singh, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent no.1.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief :
(ii) Issue a Habeas Corpus writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith from detention U/s 3(3) of National Security Act, 1980.”
3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that by the impugned order dated 02.11.2020, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act 1980”), passed by the District Magistrate, Basti, the petitioner was detained for the grounds/reasons mentioned in the impugned order. The petitioner was informed about the grounds of detention and his right to make representation. The petitioner submitted an objection dated 12.11.2020 before the concerned respondents.
4. As per paragraph No. 4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 i.e. Union of India, dated 18.01.2021 (filed on 03.02.2021), the representation of the detenu/petitioner was rejected and he was informed about it vide wireless message dated 06.01.2020. In paragraph No. 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 23.07.2021 (filed on 26.07.2021) respondent no.1 has explained the time taken in passing the order, as under :
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
