IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul and Anil Verma, JJ.
Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. The District Magistrate,
Jabalpur & Others
Writ Petition No. 10085 of 2021(Indore);
Decided on 24.8.2021
(1) National Security Act, 1980 -- S.3 -- detention order -- based on antecedents -- detention order pregnant with criminal incident of 2004 -- petitioner admittedly acquitted -- no live nexus with alleged incident of black-marketing/using fake injections -- could not have been reason to detain petitioner. (2018) 12 SCC 150 and (2018) 9 SCC 562 followed. (2020) 13 SCC 632 referred to. [Para 21
(2) National Security Act, 1980 -- S.3 -- detention order -- delay in sending detention order to State -- impugned detention order passed on 11.5.2021 -- sent to State Government -- approved on 13.5.2021 -- no undue and unexplained delay. (2018) 9SCC 562 and W. P. No.1118 of 2021 distinguished. [Para 22
(3) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 -- detention order -- black-marketing or selling fake/duplicate injections -- certainly falls within ambit and scope of 'public order'. W. P. No. 9878 of 2021 and 2021 (3) JLJ 430 relied on. (1976) 2 SCC 521, (1975) 4 SCC 47, 1975 (Supp.) SCC 1, (1989)1 SCC 374 and (1986) 4 SCC 407 discussed. (2011) 5 SCC 244 and (2012) 2 SCC 386 referred to. [Para 23
(4) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 -- detention order -- based on solitary act -- can be passed keeping in view conduct of person concerned and facts and circumstances prevailing at relevant time. (1974) 4 SCC 135, (1975) 3 SCC 292, (1986) 1 SCC 404, (1991) 1 SCC 144, (1992) 4 SCC 154, (2009) 5 SCC 296 and (2010) 1 SCC 609 followed. 2021 (2) JLJ = 389 (FB) relied on. [Para 26
(5) National Security Act, 1980 -- S.3 -- detention order -- invoking detention law when ordinary penal law also applicable -- black-marketing or selling fake/duplicate Remdesivir injections -- reason mentioned in detention order has relation with health of nation -- in pandemic, where people were dying for want of essential drugs, treatment and other facilities, singular act of black-marketing of Remdesivir injections sufficient to maintain detention order -- more so when allegation is that injections were fake/duplicate.(2012)2 SCC 176, (2011) 5 SCC 244 and (1989)1 SCC 374 followed. 2021 (2) JLJ 389 (FB) relied on. (1975) 3 SCC 858 referred to.
[Paras 28 & 29
(6) National Security Act, 1980 -- S.3 -- detention order --mentioning of reason -- subjective satisfaction should eitherbe reflected in detention order or in affidavit justifying detention order. (2012)2 SCC 176 followed. (1978) 1 SCC 405 distinguished. [Para 29
(7) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 -- detention order -- scope of judicial review -- principles culled out.
Held : [1] It is not necessary that authority passing the detention order must always be in possession of complete information at the time of passing the order.
[2] The information on the strength of which detention orderis passed may fall far short of legal proof of any specific offence. I forder indicates strong probability of impending commission of a prejudicial act, it is sufficient for passing a detention order.
[3] The Court is not obliged to enquire into the correctness/truth of facts which are mentioned as grounds of detention.
[4] Whether grounds of detention mentioned in the order are good or bad is within the domain of competent authority.
[5] The satisfaction of competent authority in passing the detention order can be assailed on limited grounds including the ground of malafide and no evidence at all.
[6] The jurisdiction under the NSA is different from that of judicial trial in Courts for offence and of judicial orders for preventionof offence. Even unsuccessful judicial trial would not operate as a bar to a detention order or make it malafide.
[7] An improperly recorded confession u/s.161 of CrPC cannot be used as substantive evidence against the accused in criminal case but it cannot be completely brushed aside on that ground for the purpose of preventive detention.
[8] The Court cannot examine the materials before it and give finding that detaining authority should not have been satisfied on the material before it. The sufficiency of ground of detention cannot be subject matter of judicial review.
[9] The justification for detention is suspicion or reasonable probability and not criminal conviction which can only be warranted by legal evidence. Thus, it is called as 'suspicious jurisdiction'.
[10] In a habeas corpus petition, Court needs to examine whether detention is prima facie legal or not and is not required to examine whether subjective satisfaction on a question of fact is rightly reached or not.
[11] The statements/evidence gathered during investigation falls within the ambit of "some evidence" which can form basis for detaining a person.
[12] The detention order is an administrative order.
W. P. No.10177 of 2021 relied on. [Para 31
(8) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 -- detention order -- scope of judicial review -- statements recorded by administration -- have probative value -- detention order can be passed on strength of those statements -- correctness and sufficiency of evidence is beyond scope of judicial review -- impugned detention order cannot be said to be irrational or illegal because statements of witnesses recorded during investigation were relied upon. [Para 32
(9) Precedent -- two different views taken by different benches of Supreme Court -- view taken by bench of larger strength will prevail -- bench strength same and previous judgment not taken in to account by subsequent bench -- previous judgment willprevail. (2003) 1 MPLJ 513 relied on. [Para 33
(10) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 -- Criminal P. C., 1973
-- S. 161 -- detention order-statements recorded u/s. 161 CrPC are certainly "some evidence/material" collected during investigation
-- canbe basis for passing detention order. (1975) 3 SCC 845 followed. W. P. No.10177 of 2021 relied on. (2010) 9 SCC 618 referred to. [Para 34
(11) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 -- detention order-person already arrested -- person already arrested under any penal law can still be detained if certain parameters are satisfied (i) detaining authority must be aware that detenu is already in custody, (ii) there is likelihood of his getting bail, (iii) there is possibility of his indulging into similar activity. W. P. No.10177 of 2021 relied on. (2019) 20 SCC 740 referred to. [Para 35
(12) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 -- detention order-mechanical and without application of mind -- District Magistrate relied upon report of Superintendent of Police -- held -- it is not form which matters -- substance and existence of necessary ingredients will determine validity of detention order. (1975) 3 SCC 845 followed. W. P. No.10177 of 2021 relied on. [Paras 37 & 39
(13) National Security Act, 1980 -- Ss. 3 and 5A -- detention order-based on antecedents -- criminal antecedent of 2004 has no live nexus with reasons of detention -- could not have been reason to issue detention order -- however, merely because of said unjustifiable reason, whole detention order will not become vulnerable -- other portion of detention order inconsonance with requirement of Act -- detention order upheld by applying doctrine of severability. [Paras 39 & 43
(14) National Security Act, 1980 -- Ss. 3 and 5A (as inserted on 21.6.1984) -- detention order-doctrine of severability given statutory recognition and shape by inserting S.5 (1960) 2 SCR 146, (1966) 2SCR 204, (1976) 2SCC 495, (2014) 12 SCC 106 and (1974) 3 SCC 601 followed. 2015 SCC Online All. 8706 relied on. [Para 41
(15) National Security Act, 1980 -- S.3 -- detention order -- Court cannot interfere if there was some evidence before detaining authority upon which reasonable man could have formed satisfaction which is sine qua non for detention -- no flaw in decision-making process -- delay in taking decision on representation cannot be measured by holding stop watch in hand -- explanation of delay depends on factual background in which occasioned delay. (1975) 4 SCC 47, (1989)1 SCC 374 and (1986) 4 SCC 407 followed. (1981) 4 SCC 428 (1981) 2 SCC 710, (2013) 4 SCC 435, (2010) 9 SCC 618, AIR 1951 SC 157, AIR 1964 SC 334, (1991) 1 SCC 476, W. P. No. 9846 of 2021, W. P. No. 11571 of 2021 and (1987) CrLJ 893 (All.) referred to. [Para 47
¼1½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && èkkjk 3 && fujks/k vkns'k && iwoZo`Ùk ij vk/kkfjr && fujks/k vkns'k 2004 dh vkijkf/kd ?kVuk ls ifjiwfrZ && LohÑrr% ;kph nks"keqDr && pksjcktkjh@udyh batsD'kuksa ds mi;ksx dh vfHkdfFkr ?kVuk ls dksbZ thoar laca/k ugha && ;kph dks fu#) djus dk dkj.k ugha gks ldrk FkkA ¼2018½12 ,l lh lh 150 rFkk ¼2018½9 ,l lh lh 562 vuqlfjrA ¼2020½13 ,l lh lh 632 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 21
¼2½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && èkkjk 3 && fujks/k vkns'k && fujksèk vkns'k jkT; dks izsf"kr djus esa foyac && vkf{kIr fujks/k vkns'k 11&5&2021 dks ikfjr && jkT; ljdkj dks izsf"kr && 13&5&2021 dks vuqeksfnr && vlE;d~ vkSj vLi"VhÑr foyac ughaA ¼2018½9 ,l lh lh 562 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Ø&1118 lu~ 2021 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 22
¼3½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && èkkjk 3 && fujks/k vkns'k && pksjcktkjh ;k udyh@izfr:i batsD'ku foØ; djuk && fuf'pr :i ls ^yksd O;oLFkk* dh ifjf/k vkSj O;kfIr esa vkrk gSA fjV ;kfpdk Ø&9878 lu~ 2021 rFkk 2021 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 430 voyafcra ¼1976½2 ,l lh lh 521] ¼1975½4 ,l lh lh 47] 1975 ¼lIyh&½ ,l lh lh 1] ¼1989½1 ,l lh lh 374 rFkk ¼1986½4 ,l lh lh 407 foosfprA ¼2011½5 ,l lh lh 244 rFkk ¼2012½2 ,l lh lh 386 fufnZ"VA¼iSjk 23
¼4½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && èkkjk 3 && fujks/k vkns'k && ,dek= ÑR; ij vk/kkfjr && O;fDr ds vkpj.k rFkk lqlaxr le; ij vfHkHkkoh rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"V esa j[krs gq, ikfjr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼1974½4 ,l lh lh 135] ¼1975½3 ,l lh lh 292] ¼1986½1 ,l lh lh 404] ¼1991½1 ,l lh lh 144] ¼1992½4 ,l lh lh 154] ¼2009½5 ,l lh lh 296 rFkk ¼2010½1 ,l lh lh 609 vuqlfjrA 2021 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 389 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 26
¼5½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && èkkjk 3 && fujks/k vkns'k && tc lkekU; nkafMd fof/k Hkh ykxw gks rc fujks/k fof/k dk vkJ; ysuk && pksjcktkjh ;k udyh@izfr:i jseMsflfoj batsD'ku foØ; djuk &&fujks/k vkns'k esa mfYyf[kr dkj.k dk jk"Vª ds LokLF; ls laca/k gS && oSf'od egkekjh esa] tgk¡ yksx vko';d vks"kf/k;ksa] mipkj rFkk vU; lqfo/kkvksa ds vHkko ds dkj.k ej jgs Fks] jseMsflfoj batsD'ku dh pksjcktkjh dk ,dek= ÑR; fujks/k vkns'k fLFkj j[kus ds fy, i;kZIr && fo'ks"kr% tc vfHkdFku ;g gS fd batsD'ku udyh@izfr:i FksA ¼2012½2 ,l lh lh 176] ¼2011½5 ,l lh lh 244 rFkk ¼1989½1 ,l lh lh 374 vuqlfjrA 2021 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 389 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼1975½3 ,l lh lh 858 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 28 ,oa 29
¼6½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && èkkjk 3 && fujks/k vkns'k && dkj.k dk mYys[k && O;fDrijd lek/kku ;k rks fujks/k vkns'k ls ;k fQj fujks/k vkns'k U;k;ksfpr Bgjkus okys 'kiFki= ls ifjyf{kr gksuk pkfg,A ¼2012½2 ,l lh lh 176 vuqlfjrA ¼1978½1 ,l lh lh 405 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 29
¼7½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && èkkjk 3 && fujks/k vkns'k && U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr && fl)kar p;furA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ¼1½ ;g vko';d ugha fd vkns'k ikfjr djrs le; fujks/k vkns'k ikfjr djus okys izkf/kdkjh dks lnSo iw.kZ tkudkjh gks ghA
¼2½ ftl tkudkjh ds cy ij fujks/k vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS og fdlh fofufnZ"V vijk/k ds fof/kd lcwr ls dgha de gks ldrh gSA ;fn vkns'k ls dksbZ izfrdwy izHkko Mkyus okyk dk;Z fd, tkus dh izcy laHkkO;rk vklUu gksuk ifjyf{kr gksrh gS rks og fujks/k vkns'k ikfjr djus ds fy, i;kZIr gSA
¼3½ U;k;ky; mu rF;ksa dh 'kq)rk@lR;rk dh tk¡p djus ds fy, ck/; ugha gS ftudk mYys[k fujks/k ds vk/kkjksa ds :i esa fd;k x;k gSA
¼4½ vkns'k esa mfYyf[kr fujks/k ds vk/kkj Bhd gSa ;k ugha] ;g l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds vf/kdkj {ks= dk fo"k; gSA
¼5½ fujks/k vkns'k ikfjr djus esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds lek/kku ij lhfer vkèkkjksa ij vk{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gS] ftuesa vln~Hkko vkSj dksbZ Hkh lk{; ugha gksus dk vk/kkj lfEefyr gSA
¼6½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vf/kdkfjrk] vijk/k ds fy, U;k;ky;ksa esa U;kf;d fopkj.k dh rFkk vijk/k ds fuokj.k ds fy, U;kf;d vkns'kksa dh vfèkdkfjrk ls fHkUu gSA ;gk¡ rd fd vlQy U;kf;d fopkj.k fujks/k vkns'k ds fy, otZu ds :i esa izofrZr ugha gksxk vFkok mls vln~Hkkfod ugha cuk,xkA
¼7½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 161 ds v/khu vuqfpr ढax ls vfHkfyf[kr laLohÑfr dk mi;ksx nkafMd izdj.k esa vfHk;qDr ds fo#) eq[; lk{; ds :i esa ugha fd;k tk ldrk ijarq fuokjd fujks/k ds iz;kstukFkZ bl vk/kkj dh iw.kZr% mis{kk ugha dh tk ldrhA
¼8½ U;k;ky; vius le{k lkexzh dh tk¡p dj ;g fu"d"kZ ugha fudky ldrk fd fujks/k izkf/kdkjh ds le{k vkbZ lkexzh ij mldk lekèkku ugha gksuk pkfg, FkkA fujks/k ds vk/kkj dh i;kZIrrk U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh fo"k;oLrq ugha gks ldrhA
¼9½ fujks/k dk vkSfpR; lansg ;k ;qfä;qä laHkkO;rk gS] nkafMd nks"kflf) ugha tks fof/kd lk{; ij gh okaNuh; gksA blhfy, bls ^lansg vf/kdkfjrk* dgk tkrk gSA
¼10½ canh izR;{khdj.k ;kfpdk esa U;k;ky; dks ;g tk¡p djuk vko';d gksrk gS fd fujks/k izFken`"V~;k oS/k gS ;k ugha] rFkk ;g tk¡p dh tkuk visf{kr ugha gS fd rF; ds iz'u ds laca/k esa O;fDrijd lek/kku ij lgh igq¡pk x;k gS ;k ughaA
¼11½ vUos"k.k ds nkSjku ,df=r dFku@lk{; ßdqN lk{;Þ dh ifjf/k esa vkrk gS] ftlls O;fDr dks fu#) djus dk vk/kkj xfBr gks ldrk gSA
¼12½ fujks/k vkns'k iz'kklfud vkns'k gksrk gSA fjV ;kfpdk Ø& 10177 lu~ 2021 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 31
¼8½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && /kkjk 3 && fujks/k vkns'k && U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr && iz'kklu }kjk vfHkfyf[kr dFkuksa dk && izek.kd ewY; gksrk gS && mu dFkuksa ds cy ij fujks/k vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk ldrk gS
&& lk{; dh 'kq)rk vkSj i;kZIrrk U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr ds ijs gS && vkf{kIr fujks/k vkns'k dks blfy, rdZghu ;k voS/k ugha dgk tk ldrk fd vUos"k.k ds nkSjku vfHkfyf[kr lkf{k;ksa ds dFkuksa dk voyac fy;k x;kA ¼iSjk 32
¼9½ iwoZ fu.kZ; && mPpre U;k;ky; dh fHkUu U;k;ihBksa }kjk nks fHkUu n`f"Vdks.k viuk, x, && o`gÙkj la[;k dh U;k;ihB vfHkHkkoh gksxh && U;k;ihB leku la[;k dh rFkk i'pkr~orhZ U;k;ihB }kjk iwoZrj fu.kZ; ij /;ku ugha fn;k x;k && iwoZrj fu.kZ; vfHkHkkoh gksxkA 2003 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 513 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 33
¼10½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && /kkjk 3 && naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 161 && fujks/k vkns'k && naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 161 ds v/khu vfHkfyf[kr dFku fuf'pr :i ls vUos"k.k ds nkSjku ,df=r ßdqN lk{;@lkexzhÞ gSa && fujks/k vkns'k ikfjr djus dk vk/kkj gks ldrs gSaA ¼1975½3 ,l lh lh 845 vuqlfjrA fjV ;kfpdk Ø&10177 lu~ 2021 voyafcrA ¼2010½9 ,l lh lh 618 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 34
¼11½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && /kkjk 3 && fujks/k vkns'k && O;fDr igys ls fxjrkj && dfri; ekunaMksa dh iwfrZ gksrh gS rks fdlh nkafMd fof/k ds v/khu igys ls fxjrkj O;fDr dks fQj Hkh fu#) fd;k tk ldrk gS && ¼1½ fujksèk izkf/kdkjh dks Hkku gks fd fu#) O;fDr igys ls vfHkj{kk esa gS] ¼2½ mldh tekur gksus dh laHkkouk gS] ¼3½ mlds blh izdkj dh xfrfof/k ls lafyIr gksus dh laHkkouk gSA fjV ;kfpdk Ø&10177 lu~ 2021 voyafcrA ¼2019½20 ,l lh lh 740 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 35
¼12½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && /kkjk 3 && fujks/k vkns'k && ;kaf=d rFkk euksfu;ksxghu && ftyk eftLVªsV us iqfyl v/kh{kd ds izfrosnu dk voyac fy;k && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && iz:i egRoiw.kZ ugha gksrk && lkj rFkk vko';d la?kVdksa dh fo|ekurk fujks/k vkns'k dh fof/kekU;rk dks vo/kkfjr djsaxsA ¼1975½3 ,l lh lh 845 vuqlfjrA fjV ;kfpdk Ø& 10177 lu~ 2021 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 37 ,oa 39
¼13½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && /kkjk 3 rFkk 5d && fujks/k vkns'k && iwoZo`Ùk ij vk/kkfjr && 2004 ds vkijkf/kd iwoZo`Ùk dk fujks/k ds dkj.kksa ls dksbZ thoar laca/k ugha && fujks/k vkns'k tkjh djus dk dkj.k ugha gks ldrk Fkk && rFkkfi] mDr vuqfpr dkj.k ek= ls laiw.kZ fujks/k vkns'k nks"kiw.kZ ugha gks tk,xk && fujks/k vkns'k dk vU; va'k vf/kfu;e dh vis{kkvksa ds vuq:i && i`Fkd~dj.k dk fl)kar ykxw dj fujks/k vkns'k ekU; fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 39 ,oa 43
¼14½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && /kkjk 3 rFkk 5d ¼21&6&1984 dks ;Fkk var%LFkkfir½ && fujks/k vkns'k && /kkjk 5d var% LFkkfir dj i`Fkd~dj.k ds fl)kar dks dkuwuh ekU;rk vkSj vkdkj fn;k x;kA ¼1960½2 ,l lh vkj 146] ¼1966½2 ,l lh vkj 204] ¼1976½2 ,l lh lh 495] ¼2014½12 ,l lh lh 106 rFkk ¼1974½3 ,l lh lh 601 vuqlfjrA 2015 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu byk& 8706 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 41
¼15½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && /kkjk 3 && fujks/k vkns'k && ;fn fujks/k izkf/kdkjh ds le{k dqN lk{; Fkk ftlds vk/kkj ij ;qfDr;qDr O;fDr dk og lek/kku gks ldrk Fkk tks fujks/k ds fy, vfuok;Z gS] rks U;k;ky; gLr{ksi ugha dj ldrk && fofu'p;u izfØ;k esa dksbZ =qfV ugha && vH;kosnu dk fofu'p; djus esa foyac dks gkFk esa ?kM+h idM+ dj ugha ukik tk ldrk && foyaac dk Li"Vhdj.k ml rF;kRed i`"BHkwfe ij fuHkZj djrk gS ftlds dkj.k foyac gqvkA ¼1975½4 ,l lh lh 47] ¼1989½1 ,l lh lh 374 rFkk ¼1986½4 ,l lh lh 407 vuqlfjrA 1981 ¼4½ ,l lh lh 428 ¼1981½2 ,l lh lh 710] ¼2013½4 ,l lh lh 435] ¼2010½9 ,l lh lh 618] , vkb vkj 1951 ,l lh 157] , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 334] ¼1991½1 ,l lh lh 476] fjV ;kfpdk Ø&9846 lu~ 2021] fjV ;kfpdk Ø& 11571 lu~ 2021 rFkk ¼1987½ lh vkj ,y ts 893 ¼byk&½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 41
ORDER
Paul, J. --1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the detention order dated 11.5.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed under National Security Act, 1980 (NSA), its extension by order dated 5.7.2021 (Annexure P/1A) and also the order dated 5.7.2021 passed by Central Government whereby the representation of petitioner was rejected. This matter was analogously heard with WP No.10177/2021 (Devesh Chourasia v. State of MP). The petitioner was running a hospital whereas Devesh Chourasia was working in the pharmaceutical wing of the said hospital.
2. The stand of petitioner as canvassed by learned Senior Counsel is that he is running a hospital. As per the detention order, police received certain informations regarding blacklisting and misuse of Remdesivir injections on 8.5.2021. Consequently, an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 10.5.2021. The petitioner was detained pursuant to order dated 11.5.2021 on 12.5.2021. On 13.5.2021 (Annexure R/2), the State government approved the order of detention and send necessary information to the Central Government. The petitioner preferred detailed representation under the NSA on 18.5.2021. The Advisory Board affirmed the order of detention on 29.6.2021. The present writ petition was filed on 3.7.2021. After getting the rejection order of Central Government dated 5.7.2021, the petition was duly amended by assailing the order of extension and the rejection order.
3. Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned Sr.Counsel assisted by Shri Pankaj Dubey contended that the detention order is passed without there being any cogent material. A stale incident of 2004 became reason for passing the order of detention. The petitioner stood acquitted on merits in the said case of 2004 mentioned in the detention order. For the reasons best known to the learned District Magistrate, he gave a strange and unacceptable finding that it is because of petitioner’s financial influence that he got a judgment in his favour in the said case of 2004. By placing reliance on (2018) 9 SCC 562 [Hetchin Haokip v. State of Manipur & Ors.), (2018) 12 SCC 150 [Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana & another] and (2020) 13 SCC 632 [Khaja Bilai Ahmed v. State of Telangana & Ors.], learned Sr. Counsel contended that the past record must have a live and proximate link with the reason of detention. Otherwise, such stale material/case cannot be a basis for passing the detention order. The reference is made to the judgment of Hetchin Haokip (supra), for yet another reason. It is submitted that there exists an unexplained delay in reporting the detention order to the State Government. The language of Sec. 3(4) and 8 of NSA shows that the law makers have used the word “forthwith” with an intention that order of detention must be communicated to the State government with quite promptitude. For the same purpose, a division bench judgment of this Court in WP No.1118/2021 (Anshul Jain v. State) is relied upon. In the instant case, there is an unexplained delay in communicating the detention order to the government which vitiates the order of detention.
4. The statement of certain witnesses recorded u/S.161 of CrPC are relied upon to bolster the submission that as per those statements no case is made out against the petitioner for black marketing or selling fake/duplicate Remdesivir injections. Heavy reliance is placed on the statements of Shri Vijay Sehajvani, Devesh Chourasia, Kshitij Rai and Yash Meindiratta. [(2010) 9 SCC 618] (Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi v.State of Manipur & Ors.) is relied upon to show that the statement recorded u/S.161 of Cr.P.C are not sufficient for invoking power u/S.3 of the NSA. In the instant case, the whole action is founded upon the statements recorded u/S.161 CrPC which makes the detention order as illegal.
5. The petitioner had no knowledge that injections were fake and there exists no material to show that any such fake injections were ever administered to the patients admitted in the hospital of
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the NSA Act, particularly the provisions related to the maintenance of public order and essential supplies and services, and ....
The wide scope of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the NSA Act and its applicability in cases where 'public order' is breached or threatened.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the justification of preventive detention under the NSA based on the impact of black marketing on 'public order' during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the nature, scale, and gravity of an act and its impact on public order in invoking the detention law under the National Security....
The detention order under the National Security Act was based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, considering the likelihood of the detainee being released from custody in the ....
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.