2003(2). JLJ 43
Bhawani Singh, C.J. and S.L. Jain, J.
Ravi Tiwari and others v. Union of India and others
W.P. No. 3419 of 2002; Decided on 28.1.2003.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that necessary safe guards as to the procedure and hearing have not been taken care of by the authority nor extended opportunity to make effective representation against the detention orders, since material documents have not been supplied and extraneous matters have influenced the District Magistrate in passing the orders of detention. Moreover, the petitioners have been detained for political considerations at the instance of persons yielding great influence. [Para 5
Held: National Security Act, 1980 (for Short ‘Act of 1980‘) confers extraordinary powers on the executive to detain a person without recourse to the ordinary law of land and trial by Courts. Such a law has to be construed strictly. The power conferred by such a law has to be exercised with extreme care and scrupulously within the bounds laid down in such law. 1972(3) SCC 845 and 1992 CrLJ 1910 followed,
Since very drastic powers of detention without trial are conferred on subordinate officers, the State Government is expected to apply its mind and make a careful choice regarding the period during which such power shall be exercised by the subordinate officers, which would solely depend on the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail. The subjective satisfaction cannot be lightly recorded by reproducing both the alternative clauses of the statute. The subjective satisfaction on the prevailing circumstances, or circumstances that are likely to prevail at a future date is the sine qua non for the exercise of power. 2002(3) SCC 451 followed, [Para 7
From the aforesaid reports, it is crystal clear that participation by the petitioners is not recorded. ... Consequently, in absence of relevant material demonstrating clearly vicious conduct of the petitioners individually, collectively or their inter-se relations, the District Magistrate ought to have been on guard to deal with the matter for arriving at his subjective satisfaction.
The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the detention orders are ‘not based on proper application of mind, after perusal of relevant materials, therefore, they cannot be sustained. [Paras 10 & 11
jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980&/kkjk 3¼2½] 9] 12 rFkk 16&fof/k dk vkJ; fy, fcuk O;fDr dk fujks/k&vf/kfu;e ds v/khu çnÙk ‘kfDr;k¡&vRar lko/kkuh ds lkFk ç;ksx esa ykuk pkfg,&fu#) O;fDr dks vH;kosnu ds fy, çHkko‘khy volj fn;k tkuk pkfg,&OfDrijd lek/kku gydsiu ls vfHkfyf[kr ugha fd;k tk ldrk&fujks/k fof/kd vk/kkj ij ugha&vfHk[kafMr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA
;kphx.k ds fo}ku T;s"B dkmUlsy }kjk fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd çkf/kdkjh }kjk çfØ;k rFkk lquokbZ ds fy, vko‘;d j{kksik; ugha fd, x, rFkk u fujks/k vkns‘k ds fo#) çHkko‘khy vH;kosnu djus ds fy, gh volj fn;k x;k] D;ksafd rkfRod nLrkost çnÙk ugha fd, x, gSa rFkk fujks/k vkns‘k ikfjr djus esa ftyk eftLVªsV cká ekeyksa }kjk çHkkfor gq, gaSA blds vfrfjDr] vf/kd çHkko j[kus okys O;fDr;ksa dh çsj.kk ij ;kphx.k jktuhfrd ckrksa ij fu#) fd, x, gSaA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 ¼la{ksi esa ^1980 dk vf/kfu;e*½ }kjk dk;Zikfydk dks ns‘k dh lkekU; fof/k dk vkJ; fy, fcuk rFkk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk fopkj.k ds fcuk fdlh O;fDr dks fu#) djus dh vlk/kkj.k ‘kfDr nh xbZ gSA ,slh fof/k dk vfrfu;efu"B :i ls vFkZ yxk;k tkuk pkfg,A ,slh fof/k }kjk çnÙk ‘kfDr dk ç;ksx vR;f/kd lko/kkuh rFkk ,slh fof/k esa vf/kdfFkr lhekvksa dh fu"Bk ls Hkhrj gksuk pkfg,A 1972¼3½ ,l lh lh 845 rFkk 1992 lhvkj ,y ts 1910 vuqlfjrA
D;ksafd v/khuLFk vf/kdkfj;ksa dks fcuk fopkj.k fujks/k dh çcy ‘kfDr;k¡ çnÙk gSa] jkT; ljdkj ls çR;kf‘kr gS fd og euksfu;ksx djs rFkk] ,slh vof/k ftlds nkSjku v/khuLFk vf/kdkfj;ksa ds }kjk ,slh ‘kfDr dk ç;ksx gksxk] ds ckjs esa lqfpfUrr pquko djs] tksfd fo|eku vFkok laHkkO; ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij ,dek= :i ls fuHkZj gksxkA O;fDrijd lek/kku dkuwu ds nksuksa vkuqdfYid [kaM çLrqr djds gyds ls vfHkfyf[kr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA fo|eku ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk] vFkok Hkfo"; dh fdlh rkjh[k dks laHkkO; ifjfLFkfr;k¡ O;fDrijd lek/kku ‘kfDr ds fy, vfuok;Z gSA 2002¼3½ ,l lh lh 451 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 7½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % mi;qZDr fjiksVks± ls ;g lqLi"V gS fd ;kphx.k }kjk Hkkx fy, tkus dh fjiksVZ ugha dh xbZ gS---ifj.kkeLo:i] ;kphx.k dk O;fDr‘k%] lkewfgd :i ls vFkok muds ,d&nwljs ds eqdkcys esa laca/k dks Li"V :i ls muds nqnZE; vkpj.k dks n‘kkZus okyh lkexzh s vHkko esa] O;fDrijd lek/kku djus esa ftyk eftLVªsV dks lko/kkuh cjruk pkfg, FkhA
mi;qZDr foospuk dk ;g ifj.kke gS fd fujks/k vkns‘k lacaf/kr lkexzh ds i‘pkr~ leqfpr euksfu;ksx ij vk/kkfjr ugha gSa] rFkk] os cuk, ugha j[ks tk ldrsA ¿iSjk 10 ,oa 11
Singh, C.J. -- 1. Ravi Tiwari and Dinesh Badsar have challenged their detentions by District Magistrate, Khandwa (East Nimar), by orders dated April 4, 2002, later approved by the State Government by order dated April 11,2002.
2. The Advisory Board constituted under sectron 9 of the National Security Act, 1980, considered the matter on April 13.5.2002 and opined that there existed sufficient cause for detention of petitioners under the National Security Act, 1980. Thereafter, the detention order has been confirmed under section 12 of the Act of 1980 by the State Government vide order dated May 13, 2002.
3. Both the petitioners are residents of Khandwa (East Nimar). Ravi Tiwari is "Pujari" in 'Dadaji Parisar', so is his father Shiv Narayan Tiwari. Dinesh Badsar is a businessman, Manager of Cooperative Fair Price Shop in Dadaji Ward, Khandwa. His father is a Medical Practitioner. Both the petitioners submit that they belong to well reputed families and are peace loving citizens.
4. Ravi Tiwari has no criminal antecedents, though two petty criminal cases were initiated against Dinesh Badsar, which do not make him criminal by any stretch of imagination. Holi and Idd Festivals took place on March 29, 2002 in Khandwa (East Nimar). The police registered cases for different offences in some police stations of the town through different First Information Reports, the names of both the petitioners do not figure in any of these cases. The petitioners submit that the detention orders could not be passed against them, since they are not involved in any of the activities alleged by the respondents. Rather, those, who expressly figure in those reports lodged at the instance of individuals or the police officers, have not been detained. Therefore, the detension orders are without jurisdiction, liable to be quashed. Further, it is also result of non-application of mind by the District Magistrate. It has been passed routinely on the basis of information supplied by the sponsoring authority, Superintendent of Police, Khandwa.
5. Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that necessary safe-guards as to the procedure and hearing have not been taken care of by the authority nor extended opportunity to make effective representation against the detention orders, since material documents have not been supplied and extraneous matters have influenced the District Magistrate in passing the orders of detention. Moreover, the petitioners have been detained for political considerations at 'the instance of persons yielding great influence.
6. Shri P.D. Gupta, Dy. AG. for the State, submits that the grounds of detention do suggest not only the antecedents of the petitioners but also the role, they played in creating the circumstances mentioned in the memorandum of offences registered vide various first information reports in this case. The grounds of detention were communicated to the petitioners permitting effective representations against the detention orders, which have been approved by the State and also the Advisory Board. Therefore, the orders of detention are valid, within the parameters of law, the National Security Act, 1980. Consequently, the detentions of the petitioners are for valid reasons. . .
7. National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'Act of 1980') confers extraordinary powers on the executive to detain a person without recourse to the ordinary law of land and trial by Couts. Such a law has to be construed strictly. The power conferred by such a law has to be exercised with extreme care and scrupulously within the bounds laid down in such law. (Kishori Mohan Bera v. State of West Bengal, [1972(3) SCC 845] and Antaryami v. State of Orissa [1992 Cri.LJ 1910]. Since very drastic powers of detention without trial are conferred on subordinate officers, the State Government is expected to apply its mind and make a careful choice regarding the period during which such power shall be exercised by the subor
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.