IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, SADHNA RANI (THAKUR), JJ.
Kamlesh Pathak - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India And Others - Respondents
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 310 of 2021
Decided On : 18-02-2022
National Security Act - Preventive Detention - Section 3(2) (3) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition to quash the detention order passed by the District Magistrate under the National Security Act, 1980. The petitioner was accused of attempting to grab land, indiscriminate firing resulting in deaths and injuries, and other criminal activities. The detention order was extended multiple times, and the petitioner challenged the legality of the detention based on procedural irregularities and delay in considering the representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was vitiated due to the detaining authority's lack of awareness of relevant material and incomplete information. The court also held that the delay in considering the petitioner's representation by the Central Government was unjustified, violating the constitutional obligation to afford the earliest opportunity for representation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the detention order, including the detaining authority's awareness of relevant material, the completeness of information, and the delay in considering the petitioner's representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the detaining authority's awareness of all material circumstances and the obligation to provide complete information. It also highlighted the constitutional obligation to afford timely representation and the unjustifiability of delays in the decision-making process.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the detention order and setting aside the extension orders. The petitioner was held not to be kept under detention pursuant to the detention order.
JUDGMENT :
Sadhna Rani (Thakur), J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. Law was set into motion with lodging of the first information report on 15.3.2020 by Sri Ashish Kumar, registered as case crime no. 189 of 2020 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, police station Kotwali Auraiya, District Auraiya.
3. As per the allegations of the first information report, the petitioner Kamlesh Pathak along with other co accused persons armed with licensee and illegal weapons tried to grab the land of Panchmukhi Hanuman Mandir. When the local people resisted, the present petitioner and his aids started indiscriminate firing due to which Advocate Manjul Chaubey and his sister Sudha Chaubey were killed and three other persons got injured. Earlier also, the petitioner had illegally grabbed the land of Kaleshwar Bhole Baba Dev Kali Mandir and forcibly appointed his younger brother as Mahant of the said temple. On the same day, i.e. on 15.3.2020 the petitioner was arrested and case crime no. 190 of 2020 under section 25 Arms Act and case crime no. 196 of 2020 under sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act were registered against him and co-accused. Later on case crime no. 462 of 2020 under section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was also registered against the petitioner and others.
4. On the recommendation reports of the Station House Officer, police station Kotwali Auraiya, Circle Officer police station Auraiya, Additional Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police Auraiya all dated 9.1.2021, the detention order was passed on 10.1.2021 by the District Magistrate, Auraiya exercising the power under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.
5. The instant Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the impugned detention order passed by the respondent no. 3, the District Magistrate, Auraiya vide no. 10/J.A.-N.S.A./2021 dated 10.1.2021 and orders dated 4.3.2021, 5.4.2021, 5.7.2021 and 1.10.2021 extending detention of the petitioner.
6. It is settled principle that preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. To prevent the misuse of this potentially dangerous power, the law of preventive detention has to be strictly construed and meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards, however technical, is mandatory and vital.
7. Certain dates of the proceedings undertaken against the petitioner are relevant to be noted at the outset.
8. On the basis of occurrence dated 15.3.2020, the first information report as case crime no. 189 of 2020 was lodged against the petitioner and co-accused. Later on case crime no. 190 of 2020, 196 of 2020 and 462 of 2020 mentioned above were also registered against the petitioner and others. After that on the recommendation reports of the Station House Officer Kotwali Auraiya, Circle Officer Kotwali Auraiya, Additional Superintendent of Police, Auraiya and Superintendent of Police Auraiya all dated 9.1.2021, the detention order dated 10.1.2021 was passed by the Detaining Authority which was approved on 19.1.2021 by the State Government. On 21.1.2021, the petitioner submitted 9 copies of representations addressing to four authorities. The jail authority sent those representations to the District Magistrate Auraiya on the same day, which were received in the office of the District Magistrate, Auraiya on 22.1.2021. After obtaining police reports on 25.1.2021 the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the District Magistrate and said order was communicated to the petitioner through the jail authority on 25.1.2021 itself. On 27.1.2021, the State Government received the representation along with the letter of the District Magistrate Auraiya dated 25.1.2021. On 28.1.2021, the State Government sent the representation to the Central Government and A
The detaining authority must be aware of all material circumstances and provide complete information, and there is a constitutional obligation to afford timely representation.
Though no time limit is prescribed for disposal of representation, constitutional imperative is that it must be disposed of as soon as possible.
Point of Law : Preventive detention - Grounds of detention - It is obligatory on part of Government to show by filing a counter affidavit that it had acted promptly in dealing with representation - P....
Quash of detention order - Delay in forwarding the petitioner’s representation on the part of the District Magistrate, and also delay in disposal of the petitioner’s representation
Point of Law : It is, thus, settled that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority has to be based on objective material and any non-existent or misconceived or irrelevant consideration,....
The detention order was quashed due to procedural violations and lack of connection between the detenu's past conduct and the necessity for detention under the National Security Act.
Unexplained delays in addressing a detainee's representation for release render ongoing detention unconstitutional, affirming the necessity for prompt action by authorities.
Detention order - The posting of the provocative message through his Facebook wall, as referred to herein-above, strikes at the root of the State’s authority and is directly connected to ‘public orde....
Detention order quashed - State failed to discharge its obligation in deciding representation expeditiously and moreover Central Government has not decided representation till date which is fatal and....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.