Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHEEL NAGU, RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Rajeev Gupta – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP No.21937 of 2019 & WP No.21974 of 2019
Decided On : 09-12-2019
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT - PREVENTIVE DETENTION - GROUNDS - PUBLIC ORDER - ADULTERATED MILK - HEALTH AND LIFE OF PUBLIC - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION - LIVE AND PROXIMATE LINK - APPROVAL BY STATE GOVERNMENT - COMMUNICATION TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - ADVISORY BOARD - REFERENCE - DELAY - VALIDITY OF DETENTION ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were detained under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA) by the District Magistrate (DM), Bhind, on the ground that their activities of preparing and distributing synthetic milk, which was consumed by a majority of the public, including infants and small children, were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The petitioners challenged the detention orders on various grounds, including the lack of a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the breach of public order, the failure to refer the case to the Advisory Board within three weeks, and the delay in communicating the detention order to the Central Government.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the grounds of detention were sufficient to sustain the detention orders. The Court found that the petitioners' acts of preparing and distributing synthetic milk, which was indistinguishable from real milk and posed a risk to public health, created a live and proximate danger to public order. The Court also found that the DM had a reasonable apprehension that the petitioners would be released on bail if they were not detained, and that the delay in referring the case to the Advisory Board and communicating the detention order to the Central Government was not fatal to the validity of the detention orders.
Issues: 1. Whether the grounds of detention were sufficient to sustain the detention orders? 2. Whether there was a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the breach of public order? 3. Whether the failure to refer the case to the Advisory Board within three weeks and the delay in communicating the detention order to the Central Government were fatal to the validity of the detention orders?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The grounds of detention were sufficient to sustain the detention orders because the petitioners' acts of preparing and distributing synthetic milk, which was indistinguishable from real milk and posed a risk to public health, created a live and proximate danger to public order. 2. There was a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the breach of public order because the petitioners' acts of preparing and distributing synthetic milk had the potential to cause widespread harm to the health and lives of the public, including infants and small children. 3. The failure to refer the case to the Advisory Board within three weeks and the delay in communicating the detention order to the Central Government were not fatal to the validity of the detention orders because the petitioners were not prejudiced by the delay and the delay was not intentional or mala fide.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions and upheld the detention orders.
JUDGMENT :
1. All these three petitions involve common question of law though on differing factual matrix and therefore, are being decided by this common order.
2. In all the three petitions, petitioners have been detained pursuant to impugned orders of preventive detention passed on 23/09/2019 by the District Magistrate, Bhind (for brevity 'DM') under the National Security Act, 1980 (for brevity 'the 1980 Act).
3. The reason assigned for exercising the extraordinary power of preventive detention is the seizure of synthetic milk and milk products which are harmful for human consumption from the premises owned by the petitioners which has caused or shall cause in future wide-spread damage to the health and lives of innumerable members of the public, majority of whom consume synthetic milk and its products under the impression that they are pure.
4. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard at length.
5. Number of grounds have been raised in support of the challenge to the order of preventive detention but before dwelling upon the same, the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions pertaining to the concept of preventive detention are reproduced below :
Article 22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. – (1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.
(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate..
(3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply –
(a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien; or
(b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention.
(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless. –
(a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention:
Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorise the detention of any person beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by Parliament under sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or
(b) such person is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made by Parliament under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7).
5. When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.
6. Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making any such order as is referred to in that clause to disclose facts which such authority considers to be against the public interest to disclose.
7. Parliament may by law prescribe –
(a) the circumstances under which, and the class or classes of cases in which, a person may be detained for a period longer than three months under any law providing for preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of sub clause (a) of clause (4);
(b) the maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes of cases be detained under any law providing for preventive detention;
(c) the procedure to be followed by
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
