The State Government can pass a confirmatory order beyond three months, up to a maximum of twelve months from the date of detention, and the detention need not be reviewed every three months after the confirmatory order.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Daya Shankar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Chandrakesh Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for Union of India and learned A.G.A. for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned detention order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2-District Magistrate-Ghaziabad under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner herein was detained vide order dated 12.7.2023 passed by the District Magistrate-Ghaziabad under Section 3(2) of the Act, 1980 having been authorised under Section 3(3) of the Act, 1980. The said order was approved by the State Government under Section 3(4) of the Act, 1980 on 18.7.2023 and the matter was referred to Advisory Board. After receiving the report from the Advisory Board, the said detention order was confirmed in terms of Section 12 (1) of the Act, 1980 by the State Government on 2.8.2023 whereby the petitioner was detained for a period of three months from the date of initial detention order i.e. 12.7.2023. The detention of the petitioner herein was again extended vide order dated 6.10.2023 for a period of six months from the date of initial detention and thereafter the detention of the petitioner has been extended on 9.1.2024 for a period of nine months from the date of initial detention.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the order dated 2.8.2023 passed under Section 12(1) of the Act, 1980 is a final order, the State has no right to review the said order in terms of provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 1980, therefore, the order extending detention of the petitioner is without any authority of law and could not be sustained. Therefore, the detention of the petitioner herein in terms of order dated 6.10.2023 and 9.1.2024 after the expiry of three months from the date of initial detention is illegal and therefore, the petitioner is liable to be released forthwith. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Pesala Nookaraju vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2023 SCC Online SC 1003 and Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana and Others, (2023) 9 SCC 587.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Cherukuri Mani vs. State of A.P. (2015) 13 SCC 722, the State Government could not have passed an order of detention at a time for more than a period of three months, therefore, initially the confirmatory order dated 2.8.2023 was passed for detention of the petitioner herein for a period of three months and subsequently, the same was extended vide order dated 6.10.2023 and 9.1.2024. Therefore, there is no illegality either in the initial detention order dated 12.7.2023 and the confirmatory order dated 2.8.2023 and the subsequent extension orders dated 6.10.2023 and 9.1.2024.

6. In Cherukuri Mani (supra), relied upon by the learned A.G.A. the Apex Court relying upon the proviso to Section 3(3) had held that the State Government cannot pass the confirmatory order under section 12(1) beyond the period of three months at a time. The said judgment in Cherukuri Mani (Supra), has been overruled by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Pesala Nookaraju (supra), and has held that when the State Government passes a confirmatory order under Section 12 of the Act after receipt of the report from the Advisory Board then, such a confirmatory order need not be restricted to a period of three months only. It can be beyond a period of three months from the date of initial order of detention, but up to a maximum period of twelve months from the date of detention. The Apex Court has further held that the continuation of the detention pursuant to the confirmatory order passed by the State Government need not also specify the period of detention; neither is it restricted to a period of three month