Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, JJ.
Sunil Chachuda – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.1046 of 2023
Decided on : 29-01-2024
National Security Act - Detention Order - Sections 3, 10, 11, 12, & 13 of the Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the detention order passed under Section 12(1) of the National Security Act, 1980. The petitioner was initially detained for three months, and the detention was subsequently extended. The petitioner argued that the subsequent extensions were illegal as the State had no right to review the final order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the subsequent orders extending the petitioner's detention beyond the initial three months were illegal and not in accordance with the law. The court declared the petitioner's detention subsequent to the expiry of three months from the initial detention as illegal and quashed all further orders extending the detention.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the subsequent extensions of the petitioner's detention beyond the initial three months.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Sections 3, 10, 11, 12, & 13 of the National Security Act and the judgments in Cherukuri Mani v. State of A.P., Pesala Nookaraju vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, and Ameena Begum vs. The State of Telangana to establish that once a confirmatory order of detention is passed under Section 12(1) of the Act, the State Government has no authority to review or extend the order. The detention becomes illegal after the expiry of the prescribed period in the confirmatory order.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the court declared the subsequent extensions of the petitioner's detention as illegal and quashed all further orders extending the detention. The petitioner was directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.
JUDGMENT :
Anish Kumar Gupta, J.
1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3 is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Sujan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.6- Union of India.
3. The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned detention order dated 30.01.2023, passed by the respondent no.3-District Magistrate-Hapur, which was confirmed by the respondent no.2-State Government, vide order dated 13.03.2023, in terms of Section 12 (1) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), on 13.03.2023, which was subsequently extended vide order dated 27.10.2023.
4. The facts in brief are that the petitioner herein was detained vide order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the District Magistrate-Hapur, under Section 3(2) of the Act, having been authorised under Section 3(3) of the Act. The said order was approved by the State Government under Section 3(4) of the Act on 07.02.2023 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, by the State Government on 13.03.2023 whereby the petitioner was detained for a period of three months from the date of initial detention order. The said order dated 13.03.2023 was further extended time to time and lastly on 27.10.2023 for a period of 12 months from the date of initial detention.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the order dated 13.03.2023 passed under Section 12(1) of the Act, is a final order and the State has no right to review the said order in terms of provisions of Section 12 of the Act, therefore, the subsequent orders passed extending detention of the petitioner, are without any authority of law and could not be sustained. Therefore, the detention of the petitioner herein in terms of order dated 13.03.2023 after the expiry of three months from the date of initial detention i.e., 30.01.2023, 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 judgement of the Apex Court in Pesala Nookaraju vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh & others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1003 and Ameena Begum vs. The State of Telangana and others reported in (2023) 9 SCC 587.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Cherukuri Mani v. State of A.P., reported in (2015) 13 SCC 722, the State Government could not have passed an order of detention at a time more than for a period of three months. Therefore, initially the order dated 13.03.2023 was passed confirming the detention of the petitioner herein for a period of three months and subsequently, the same was extended from time to time. Therefore, there is no illegality either in the initial detention order dated 30.01.2023 and the confirmatory order dated 13.03.2023 and the subsequent extension orders extending detention of the petitioner herein for a period of three months at a time.
7. To appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it will be relevant to go through the scheme of the Act with regard to the detention of a persons. It will be relevant to note the Sections 3, 10, 11, 12, & 13 of the Act, which reads as under:
(a) if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India, or
(b) if satisfied with respect to any foreigner that with a view to regulating his continued presence in India or with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from India, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be deta
Once a confirmatory order of detention is passed under Section 12(1) of the National Security Act, the State Government has no authority to review or extend the order. The detention becomes illegal a....
Once a confirmatory order of detention is passed under Section 12(1) of the National Security Act, the State Government has no authority to review or extend the order.
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 th....
Preventive detention orders are invalid if issued against individuals already in custody, as they lack grounds for action deemed necessary to prevent prejudicial behavior.
The power to fix the period of preventive detention under the KAAPA is exclusively vested in the Government after receiving the Advisory Board's report, and any initial stipulation of a detention per....
The power to fix the period of preventive detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, is exclusively vested in the Government after the Advisory Board's recommendation, ....
The court established that detainees under the National Security Act must be afforded the right to legal representation, and that detention orders must adhere strictly to statutory procedures regardi....
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
