The approval of a detention order by the State Government under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the National Security Act does not require the detenu to be taken into custody before the report is made or the approval is granted.

( 1 ) THE District Magistrate, Damoh being satisfied with respect to one Ramesh Kumar alias Ramesh Pahalwan, aged 24 years, r/o Dhor Bazar, Damoh that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary so to do, made an order on 20-12-1985 directing that he be detained under sub-sec. (2) of S. 3 of the National Security Act. However, as the said person was alleged to be absconding, the detention order could be executed against him only on 20-1-1986 and he could be taken into custody on the said date.

( 2 ) IN the meanwhile, as required by sub-s. (4) of S. 3 of the Act, the District Magistrate Damoh had sent a report about the detention order dt. 20-12-1985 having been passed against the detenu to the State Government on 26-12-1985 and the same was approved by the State Government in its Home Department on 28-12-1985. So also, in the meanwhile, as required by sub-s. (5) of S. 3, the State Government had sent information about the detention order dt. 26-12-1985, having been passed by the District Magistrate and the same having been approved by it, to the Government of India on 2-1-1986.

( 3 ) NOW, after the detention order was executed against the detenu on 20-1-1986, and he was taken into custody on the said date, the grounds of detention were served on him on the same day as required by S. 8. In the covering letter, under which the grounds of detention were served on the detenu, the detenu was informed of his right to make a representation against the detention order to the State Government (Secretary, Home Department) and also of his right to be heard personally by the Advisory Board in case he desired such a hearing.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, as required by S. 10, the State Government referred the matter to the Advisory Board on 29-1-1986. In its turn, as required by S. 11, the Advisory Board considered the matter in its meeting on 28-2-1986. The detenu was present in the said meeting of the Board and was granted a personal hearing by it. The report dt. 3-3-1986 of the Board was received by the State Government in its Home Department on 5-3-1986. In the light of the said report, the State Government confirmed the detention order u/s. 12 on 14-3-1986 and directed the detention of the detenu to continue for a period of twelve months ending on 19-1-1987.

( 5 ) IN the present petition filed by the wife of the detenu for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, the detention of her husband under sub-s. (2) of S. 3 of the National Security Act is challenged on various grounds. First ground on which great emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that sub-s. (4) of S. 3 contemplates the approval of a detention order passed by an officer mentioned in sub-s. (3) of S. 3 i. e. a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police by the State Government only after the said order is executed and the detenu is taken into custody under it. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the present case the approval of the detention order dt. 20-12-1985 passed by the District Magistrate by the State Government on 28-12-1985 i. e. prior to the detenu's detention under the said order on 20-1-1986 was premature and contrary to the provisions of sub-s. (4) of S. 3 and accordingly had the effect of rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal and invalid.

( 6 ) IN our opinion, the abovesaid interpretation put by the learned counsel for the petitioner on sub-s. (4) of S. 3 of the Act is on the face of it misconceived and cannot be accepted. It is greatly significant that under the provisions of the National Security Act the original power to make an order of detention under sub-s. (2) of S. 3 against any person has been vested in no lesser authority than Government or the Central Government itself. It is only in certain circumstances mentioned in sub-s. (3) of S. 3 that in case the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary to do so it h