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.

JUDGMENT :

Anish Kumar Gupta, J.

1. Heard Sri Dayashankar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhishek Mishra and Sri Chandrakesh Mishra for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General, Sri P.C. Srivastava, assisted by Sri J.K. Upadhyaya and Shri Vikas Sahai for the State and Ms. Annapurna Singh Chandel, learned counsel on behalf of the Union of India.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned detention order dated 18.9.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2-District Magistrate, Chitrakoot under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act, 1980'), which was subsequently confirmed by the State Government vide order dated 2.11.2023 for a period of three months from the date of the detention of the petitioner i.e. from 18.9.2023. Thereafter, the said detention order was again extended on 11.12.2023 by the State Government for a period of six months with effect from 18.9.2023.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner herein was detained vide order dated 18.9.2023 passed by the District Magistrate-Chitrakoot, 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 25.9.2023 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 2.11.2023 whereby the petitioner was detained for a period of three months from the date of initial detention order i.e. 18.9.2023. The detention of the petitioner herein was again extended vide order dated 11.12.2023 for a period of six months from the date of initial detention.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the order dated 2.11.2023 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 11.12.2023 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 & others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1003 and Ameena Begum vs. The State of Telangana and others reported in (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 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 for more than a period of three months, therefore, initially the order dated 2.11.2023 was passed for detention of the petitioner herein for a period of three months and subsequently, the same was extended vide order dated 11.12.2023. Therefore, there is no illegality either in the initial detention order dated 18.9.2023 and the confirmatory order dated 2.11.2023 and the subsequent extension order dated 11.12.2023 by which the detention of the petitioner herein was again extended for a period of six months from the date of the initial detention i.e. 18.9.2023.

6. 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 person under the National Security Act, 1980. It will be relevant to note that as per the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act, 1980 if the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, if is satisfied in respect of any person with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and it