Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J., Rajendra Menon and S.K. Seth, JJ.
Mangal Singh @ Mangu v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petitions No.13987 and 13989 of 2015; Decided on 14.9.2015.
Substantial questions of law for consideration by the Larger Bench, as follows :
"(1)Whether the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Haji Abdul Rajjak (supra), interpreting section 5A of NSA Act has laid down the correct law or not?
(2)Whether the observations of the Division Bench in Haji Abdul Rajjak (supra), that earlier two judgments Dharamdas Shamlal Agrawal (supra), and Tahsildar Singh (supra), have lost significance in the facts of the case and in view of section 5A of the NSA Act is correct or not?
(3)Whether the State has to plead and mention in the counter- affidavit or return the fact that the order of detention has been passed on each ground and it be treated as a separated order under section 5A of the NSA Act in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.Sowkath Ali (supra)?"
Held : We may observe that, if, the provisions of section 5A of the Act are attracted in the fact situation of any case, the same must be given effect to; and the challenge to the detention order in such a case must be tested on that basis ... The fact that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tahsildar Singh (supra), does not refer to section 5A of the Act, will not come in the way of the Court to consider the applicability of section 5A of the National Security Act, if arises in the fact situation of a given case. That is a matter to be considered on case to case basis.
The decision of the Division Bench in the case of Tahsildar Singh (supra), is only an authority on the proposition that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority will be vitiated due to non-mentioning of material fact such as acquittal or detention of the detenu in the criminal case referred to in the grounds of detention. It is not an authority on the proposition arising from section 5A of the Act that the order of detention is deemed to be valid, as having been made with reference to remaining ground or grounds.
The issue regarding applicability of section 5A or otherwise, will have to be considered on case to case basis. If section 5A is applicable, in such cases, merely because one or some of the groundsof order of detention disclosed to the detenu under section 8 is or are found to be invalid or inoperative due to application of specified reason(s), still the detention order shall be deemed to be valid and operative with reference to the remaining ground or grounds disclosed therein. For, both clause (a) and clause (b) in section 5A independently provide for a legal fiction that the order of detention has been validly passed with reference to the remaining ground or grounds. That is the principle of severability of the grounds of detention. Indeed, section 5A will be applicable only when the order of detention is made on two or more grounds disclosed to the detenu.
(2) National Security Act, 1980 -- S.5A -- Constitution of India -- Arts.226 and 227 -- detention order -- writ petition against such order -- whether filing of counter-affidavit in rebuttal by detaining authority is necessary -- where legal presumption rebutted by material facts in support of that plea -- then question of filing of counter-affidavit may arise -- petitioner failed to rebut said legal presumption -- where order of detention based on two or more grounds -- there would be "no occasion or necessity" for detaining authority to plead about applicability of section 5A of the Act.
Held : In our view, considering the legal presumption predicated in section 5A of the Act,there is no reason why the detaining authority should restate that factin the reply/counter-affidavit. Non mentioning of that fact in the counter-affidavit, cannot preclude the detaining authority from invoking the said provision on the basis of admitted, indisputable or proved facts available from the record, which may be sufficient to answer the controversy. That would be a pure question of law to be answered on the basis of such admitted, indisputable or proved facts.
We have no hesitation in taking the view that, as it is a matter of legal presumption under section 5A of the Act, the need to restate that fact in the counter-affidavit or return to be filed by the detaining authority to oppose the writ petition challenging the order of detention may arise, in cases where the petitioner in the writ petition was to rebut the legal presumption by stating material facts in support of that plea. If the writ petitioner failed to rebut the said legal presumption in the writ petition, there would be "no occasion or necessity" for the detaining authority to plead about the applicability of section 5A of the Act, in matters where the order of detention is based on two or more grounds, in view of the legal presumption in section 5A. The third question articulated in the second case (Mangal Singh @ Mangu) is answered accordingly. (1994)5 SCC 54, AIR 1981 SC 1480 and AIR 1990 SC 1272 followed. 2011(1) MPHT 513 (DB), (1989)2 SCC 370, AIR 1973 SC 207, AIR 1975 SC 728, AIR 1979 SC 447, (2013)4 SCC 531, (2011)5 SCC 244, 2012(5) MPHT 111 (DB), (2012)2 SCC 176, 2000(2) JLJ 394 (DB), AIR 2000 SC 2662, 2001 AIR SCW 2413 and AIR 2004 SC 4703 referred to.
¼1½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && /kkjk 5d] [kaM ¼d½ rFkk ¼[k½ rFkk /kkjk 8 && /kkjk 5d dh O;kfIr vkSj ykxw gksuk && fujks/k vkns'k && /kkjk 5d dsoy rHkh ykxw gksxh && tc fujks/k vkns'k fu#) dks izdV fd, x, nks ;k vf/kd vk/kkjksa ij fd;k x;k gksA
lkjoku~ iz'u %
ß¼1½ D;k [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk gkth vCnqy jTtkd ¼iwoksZDr½] esa jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5d dk fuoZpu dj lgh fof/k vf/kdfFkr dh gS ;k ugha\
¼2½ D;k gkth vCnqy jTtkd ¼iwoksZDr½] esa [kaM U;k;ihB dh leqfDr fd iwoZrj nks fu.kZ; /keZnkl ';keyky vxzoky ¼iwoksZDr½] vkSj rglhynkj flag ¼iwoksZDr½] viuk egRo [kks pqds gSa vkSj jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5d ds n`f"Vdks.k ls lgh gS ;k ugha\
¼3½ D;k jkT; dks izfr&'kiFki= ;k fjVuZ esa bl rF; dk vfHkopu vkSj mYys[k djuk gksrk gS fd fujks/k vkns'k izR;sd vk/kkj ij ikfjr fd;k x;k gS vkSj bls ,- lkSdFk vyh ¼iwoksZDr½] esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds n`f"Vdks.k jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5d ds v/khu i`Fkd fd;k vkns'k ds :i esa ekuk tk,\Þ
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ge dg ldrs gSa fd] ;fn] fdlh izdj.k ds rF;ksa dh vofLFkfr esa /kkjk 5d ds mica/k vkdf"kZr gksrs gSa] ogh dk;kZfUor djuk pkfg,] vkSj ,sls izdj.k esa fujks/k vkns'k dks vk{ksfir djus dk mlh vk/kkj ij ijh{k.k fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ---- rF; fd rglhynkj flag ¼iwoksZDr½] ds izdj.k esa bl U;k;ky; dh [kaM U;k;ihB dk fu.kZ; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5d dh vksj funsZ'k ugha djrk] U;k;ky; }kjk jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5d ds ykxw gksus dk fopkj djus esa ck/kk ugha Mkysxk] ;fn bl izdj.k ds rF; dh vofLFkfr esa iz'u mRiUu gksrk gSA bl fo"k; ij izR;sd izdj.k ds vk/kkj ij fopkj fd;k tkuk gSA
rglhynkj flag ¼iwoksZDr½] ds izdj.k esa [kM U;k;ihB dk fu.kZ; dsoy bl izfriknuk ij izkf/kdkj gS fd fu#) djus okys izkf/kdkjh dh vkReijd laarqf"V lkjoku~ rF; tSls fd fu#) dk nkafMd izdj.k esa nks"keqfDr ;k fujks/k dk fujks/k ds vk/kkjksa esa fufnZ"V dk mYys[k u djus ds dkj.k nwf"kr gksxkA ;g vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5d ls mRiUu izfriknuk ij izkf/kdkj ugha gS fd fujks/k vkns'k fof/kekU; gksuk le>k tk,xk] D;ksafd 'ks"k vk/kkj ;k vk/kkjksa ds laca/k esa fd;k x;k gSA
/kkjk 5d ds ykxw gksus ;k fHkUu fook|d ds laca/k esa] izR;sd izdj.k ds vk/kkj ij fopkj djuk gksxkA ;fn /kkjk 5d ykxw gksrh gS] ,sls izdj.kksa esa] dsoy blfy, fd /kkjk 8 ds v/khu fu#) dks fujks/k vkns'k ds ,d ;k dqN izdV fd, x, vkèkkj vfof/kekU; ;k fofufnZ"V dkj.kksa ds dkj.k ykxw gksus ls vizHkkoh ik;k tkrk gS ;k gSa] rks Hkh fujks/k vkns'k fof/kekU; vkSj mlesa izdV 'ks"k vk/kkj ;k vk/kkjksa ds laca/k esa izHkkoh le>k tk,xkA /kkjk 5d ds nksuksa [kaM ¼d½ vkSj [kaM ¼[k½ esa fof/kd dYiuk ds fy, Lora= :i ls O;oLFkk dh xbZ gS fd 'ks"k vk/kkj ;k vk/kkjksa ds lacaèk esa fujks/k vkns'k fof/kekU;r% ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA fujks/k ds vk/kkjksa ds i`FkDdj.k dk ;gh vk/kkj gSA okLro esa] /kkjk 5d dsoy rHkh ykxw gksxh tc fujksèk vkns'k fu#) dks izdV fd, x, nks ;k vf/kd vk/kkjksa ij fd;k x;k gksA
¼2½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && /kkjk 5d && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 rFkk 227 && fujks/k vkns'k && ,sls vkns'k ds fo#) fjV ;kfpdk && D;k fu#) djus okys izkf/kdkjh dks [kaMu esa izfr&'kiFki= izLrqr djuk vko';d gS && tgk¡ ml vfHkopu ds leFkZu esa lkjoku~ rF; dh fof/kd mi/kkj.kk dk [kaMu fd;k x;k gS && rc izfr&'kiFki= izLrqr djus dk iz'u mRiUu gks ldrk gS && ;kph dfFkr fof/kd mi/kkj.k dk [kaMu djus esa vlQy jgk gS && tgk¡ vkns'k nks ;k vf/kd vk/kkjksa ij vk/kkfjr gS && fu#) djus okys izkf/kdkjh dks /kkjk 5d ds ykxw gksus ds fo"k; esa vfHkopu djus dk ßvolj ;k vko';drk ughaÞA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % gekjh jk; esa] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5d esa izfrikfnr fof/kd mi/kkj.kk dk fopkj djus ij] dksbZ dkj.k ugha gS fd fu#) djus okyk izkf/kdkjh dks bl rF; dks fjVuZ@izfr&'kiFki= esa D;ksa nksgjkuk pkfg,A bl rF; dk izfr&'kiFki= esa mYys[k u djuk] fu#) djus okys izkf/kdkjh dks vfHkys[k ij miyC/k Lohd`r] vfookfnr ;k lkfcr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij mi;qZDr mica/k dk vkg~oku djus ls fuokfjr ugha djrk] tks lafookn dk i;kZIr mÙkj gks ldrk gSA ;g 'kq) fof/k dk iz'u gksxk ftldk mÙkj ,sls Lohd`r] vfookfnr ;k lkfcr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij nsuk gksrk gSA
gedks ;g jk; ysus esa dksbZ f>>d ugha gS fd] D;ksafd ;g vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5d ds v/khu fof/kd mi/kkj.kk dk ekeyk gS] fujks/k vkns'k dks vk{ksfir djus dh fjV ;kfpdk ds fojks/k esa fu#) djus okys izkf/kdkjh }kjk izLrqr izfr&'kiFki= ;k fjVuZ esa ml rF; dks nksgjkus dh vko';drk mRiUu gks ldrh gS] ,sls izdj.kksa esa tgk¡ fjV ;kfpdk esa ;kph }kjk fof/kd mi/kkj.kk dk bl vfHkopu ds leFkZu esa lkjoku~ O;Dr rF;ksa ls [kaMu fd;k FkkA ;fn ;kfpdkdrkZ fjV ;kfpdk esa mi;qZDr fof/kd mi/kkj.kk dk [kaMu djus esa vlQy jgk gS] ogk¡ fu#) djus okys izkfèkdkjh dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5d ds ykxw gksus ds fo"k; esa ^^volj ;k vko';drk^^ ugha gksxhA ,sls ekeyksa esa tgk¡ fujks/k vkns'k nks ;k vf/kd vk/kkjksa ij vk/kkfjr gS] /kkjk 5d dh fof/kd mi/kkj.kk ds n`f"Vdks.k ls f}rh; izdj.k ¼eaxyflag mQZ eaxw½ esa mPpkfjr r`rh; iz'u dk rn~uqlkj mÙkj fn;k tkrk gSA ¼1994½5 ,l lh lh 54] , vkb vkj 1981 ,l lh 1480 rFkk , vkb vkj 1990 ,l lh 1272 vuqlfjrA 2011¼1½ ,e ih ,p Vh 513 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½] ¼1989½2 ,l lh lh 370] , vkb vkj 1973 ,l lh 207] , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 728] , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 447] ¼2013½4 ,l lh lh 531] ¼2011½5 ,l lh lh 244] 2012¼5½ ,e ih ,p Vh 111 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½] ¼2012½2 ,l lh lh 176] 2000¼2½ ts ,y ts 394 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½] , vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 2662] 2001 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 2413 rFkk , vkb vkj 2004 ,l lh 4703 fufnZ"VA
¼iSjk 18
Khanwilkar, C.J. -- 1. These matters have been placed before the Full Bench pursuant to the reference made by the Division Bench in the respective writ petitions.
2. The first reference was made in Writ Petition No.2689/2013 filed by Kheri Gurjar before the Bench at Gwalior (now renumbered as Writ Petition No.13989/2015 at Jabalpur) vide order dated 5.9.2013. The Judges of the Division Bench differed in their views, as a result of which reference to the third Judge became necessary.The question formulated by the Bench reads thus :
“Whether, after considering the provision of section 5(A) of National Security Act and judgment of this Court in Haji Abdul Rajjak v. State of M.P. and others [2012(5) MPHT 111 (DB)], the detention order of the competent authority passed under the NSA Act can be set aside on the basis of earlier view held in this Court’s judgment reported as Tahsildar Singh v. State of M.P. and others [2011(1) MPHT 513 (DB)], wherein, the provision of section 5A of the Act was not considered.”
3. In another writ petition which came up for consideration before the same Division Bench at Gwalior being Writ Petition No.4038/2013 (now renumbered as Writ Petition No.13987/2015 at Jabalpur), the Court vide order dated 21.10.2013, formulated substantial questions of law for consideration by the Larger Bench,as follows :
“(1)Whether the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Haji Abdul Rajjak (supra), interpreting section 5A of NSA Act has laid down the correct law or not?
(2)Whether the observations of the Division Bench in Haji Abdul Rajjak (supra), that earlier two judgments Dharamdas Shamlal Agrawal (supra), and Tahsildar Singh (supra), have lost significance in the facts of the case and in view of section 5A of the NSA Act is correct or not?
(3)Whether the State has to plead and mention in the counter- affidavit or return the fact that the order of detention has been passed on each ground and it be treated as a separated order under section 5A of the NSA Act in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.Sowkath Ali (supra)?”
However, the Registry mistakenly placed this matter before the third Judge, after taking administrative order of the Chief Justice. The third Judge, vide order dated 18.12.2013, justly, opined that there was no difference of opinion on any point amongst the judges comprising the Division Bench in this case and, therefore, it was not necessary to give any opinion.
4. Both the matters were thereafter placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side. It was ordered that the matter beplaced before the Full Bench, to be heard at the Principal Seat. Accordingly, both the writ petitions were transferred to the Principal Seat from Bench at Gwalior and have been placed for analogous hearing before the Full Bench.
5. Briefly stated, in writ petition filed by Kheri Gurjar which was the first writ petition heard by the same Division Bench at Gwalior, there was difference of opinion between the two Judges. One Judge was of the opinion that as the detenu has been acquitted in nine out of twelve criminal cases referred to in the grounds accompanying the detention order, that fact was a material fact and essential to be placed before the detaining authority. Having failed to do so, the detention order was vitiated. For taking that view, the learned Judge placed reliance on paras 11 to 13 of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tahsildar Singh v. State of M.P. and others [2011(1) MPHT 513 (DB)].The said decision has mainly considered the exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal v. The Police Commissioner and another [(1989)2 SCC 370=AIR 1989 SC 1282], Mohd. Subrati v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1973 SC 207], Suresh Mahato v. The District Magistrate, Burdwan [ AIR 1975 SC 728], and Asha Devi v. K. Shivraj, Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Gujarat [AIR 1979 SC 447].The learned Judge additionally relied on the decision of t
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
