IMPORTANT POINT
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 regarding duration and review.

JUDGMENT :

Anish Kumar Gupta, J.

1. A First Information Report was lodged on 11.2.2023, alleging that quiet a number of persons were illegally meeting the already incarcerated person, namely Abbas Ansari in the Jail premises and were trying his escape from lawful custody. The petitioner herein was arrested and was in judicial custody. When the petitioner herein moved an application for his release on bail, the District Magistrate who was delegated powers under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), apprehending the disturbance of public order by the petitioner herein passed an order dated 6.5.2023 under Section 3(2) of the Act, directing detention of the petitioner.

2. Under Section 3(4) of the National Security Act, the State Government on 10.5.2023 approved the detention order. Thereafter, as per Section 3 (5) of National Security Act, the detention order, grounds of detention and all other relevant documents, as were in the possession of the State Government, were sent to the Central Government by a communication dated 11.5.2023. Also, under Section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980, on the same date i.e. on 11.5.2023, the matter was referred by the State Government to the U.P. Advisory Board (Detention), Lucknow. The Advisory Board, after allegedly complying with all the provisions under Section 11 of the National Security Act, sent its report (the date of which is not given). However, it was received by the State Government on 31.5.2023. Thereafter, upon considering the report of the Advisory Board on 5.6.2023, an order was passed by the State of U.P. under Section 12 (1) of the National Security Act, as per the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary, by which the petitioner was to be detained provisionally for a period of three months. This order again, as per the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary, Sri Pramendra Kumar Gupta, was extended on 21.7.2023 and the petitioner was to be detained provisionally for a period of six months from the initial date of detention. Aggrieved by the initial order of detention, dated 6.5.2023 and the consequential illegal detention, the petitioner has approached this Court. Essentially, the petitioner's counsel, Sri Dayashankar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Chandrakesh Mishra and Abhishek Kumar Mishra have made the following submissions:

(i) The petitioner had tried to submit his representation through the jailer and when the same was not taken by the Authorities, he submitted the representation by registered post on 26.5.2023. This representation was addressed to the District Magistrate. However, he submits that the hearing was conducted on 26.5.2023 itself by Advisory Board, and therefore, the representation as was required to be placed before the Advisory Board under Section 10 of the National Security Act, was never there before the Advisory Board.

(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that when the petitioner represented through his counsel on 1.6.2023 to the State Government and the Central Government, this representation was never considered.

(iii) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that if the counter-affidavit of Sri Premendra Kumar Gupta, is perused, then, as per paragraph 9' it is evident that Government officials were present and were heard before the U.P. Advisory Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner since has relied upon para 9' of the affidavit of Sri P.K. Gupta, the same is reproduced as under:

“That, it is submitted that the U.P. Advisory Board, Lucknow vide its letter dated 22.5.2023, informed the State Government that the case of the petitioner would be taken up for hearing on 26-05-2023 and directed that the petitioner be informed that if he desired to attend the hearing before the U.P. Advisory Board alongwith his next friend (non-advocate), he could do so and be allowed to take his next friend (non-advocate) alongwith him if he had so requested. This fact was