The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compelling reasons justifying detention when the individual is already in jail and the need for conduct relevant to the formation of satisfaction with a reasonable nexus to the action prejudicial to public order.

Prakash Shrivastava, J.

1. This writ petition is at the instance of the Petitioner No. 1 - detenu and the Petitioner No. 2 - his father, challenging the order dated 17-2-2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Badwani in N.S.A. Case No. 1/2010 directing the detention of the Petitioner No. 1 under Section 3(2) of the. National Security Act, 1980 ("Act" hereafter) as confirmed by the order of the State Government dated 15-4-2010 under Section 12(1) of the Act directing that the Petitioner No. 1 will be kept in detention for a period of 12 months till 21-2-2011.

2. The brief facts are that the Petitioner No. 1 is a resident of Sendhwa. The impugned detention order dated 17-2-2010 was passed against him under Section 3(2) of the Act and he was taken in detention on 22-2-2010. He was served with the detention order and grounds of detention along with the documents on 22-2-2010. The case was sent for approval of the Government on 17-2-2010 and the State Government granted approval on 26-2-2010 and the information was sent to the Central Government on 2-3-2010. The case was sent to the Advisory Board on 3-3-2010 and the Advisory Board gave its opinion and thereafter the order confirming the detention order was passed on 15-4-2010. Aggrieved with the detention order, the Petitioners have approached this Court.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Respondents have relied upon the stale material for the purpose of the detention of the Petitioner No. 1. He further submitted that the Petitioner No. 1 is already in jail and the detention order has been passed without application of mind and that there is no material to indicate that the Petitioner No. 1 is indulging in any activity from inside the jail to disturb public order.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that the grounds of detention indicate that no error has been committed by the Respondents in passing the detention order since the Petitioner is involved in the activities disturbing the public order.

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is the settled position in law that detention of a person without a trial is a very serious encroachment on his personal freedom and at all stage all questions in relation to the detention are required to be carefully and solemnly considered. Since the preventive detention is a serious inroad into the freedom of individuals, therefore, reason, purposes and the manner of such detention is subject to closest scrutiny and examination. The Supreme Court in the matter of Shafiq Ahmad v. District Magistrate, Meerut and Ors., reported in (1989) 4 SCC 556, has laid down the scope of judicial review by observing that:

Hence, there must be conduct relevant to the formation of the satisfaction having reasonable nexus with the action of the Petitioner which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Existence of materials relevant to the formation of the satisfaction and having rational nexus to the formation of the satisfaction that because of certain conduct "it is necessary" to make an order "detaining" such person, are subject to judicial review.

7. The Petitioner No. 1 is already in jail for offence under Section 302, IPC, which is apparent from Ground No. (40) of Grounds of Detention supplied to the Petitioner, but the grounds or the detention order do not reflect that the Respondents have applied their mind to the possibility of the Petitioner No. 1 being released on bail.

8. It is the settled position in law that the authorities are not precluded from passing an order of detention when the person concerned is in jail, but while passing the order of detention, they are required to apply their mind to the fact that the person concerned is already in jail and there are compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenu was already in detention and the compelling reasons implies that there must be cogent material before the Detaining Autho