Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul and Anil Verma,JJ.
Dilip Sisodia v. State of M. P. & Others
Writ Petition No. 12203 of 2021(Indore);
Decided on 22.8.2021
(1) National Security Act, 1980 -- S.3 -- detention order -- competence of authority -- challenge to competence on ground that detention order was tweeted by "District Magistrate/Collector", power is given to specific authority namely "District Magistrate" and not to "Collector" who is authority under revenue laws -- argument that "Collector/District Magistrate" is loosely used by authority which shows non-application of mind -- held -- non-application of mind and competence are two different facets -- on basis of this argument, it cannot be held that District Magistrate was not competent. [Paras 4, 30 & 31
(2) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 -- Constitution of India
-- Art. 226 - detention order -- scope of judicial review -- is very limited -- Court should be prima facie satisfied that - (i) order is not passed under the Act under which it is purported to have been passed, (ii) it is sought to be executed against wrong person, (iii) it is passed forwrong purpose, (iv) it is passed on vague,extraneous and irrelevant grounds, or (v) authority which passed it had no authority to doso.(1992) Supp. 1 SCC 496 followed. [Para 20
(3) National Security Act, 1980 -- S.3 -- detention order --petitioner detained for preventing himfrom acting in manner prejudicial to maintenance of 'public order' -- order not passed for wrong purpose -- nature, scale/magnitude and gravity of act and its impact onpublic order is relevant factor to determine whether detention law is to be invoked -- isolated act of cheating orland-grabbing may not be sufficient but when such act takes place with frequency and is ofsevere magnitude, detention law can very well be invoked.1983 CrLJ22 discussed. [Paras 23 & 24
(4) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 -- detention order -- detaining authority noted several incidents of land -- grabbing by detenu -- not confined to only one colony -- allegation of land-grabbing of wide and serious magnitude -- order not based on vague, extraneous or irrelevant grounds. [Para 25
(5) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 -- detention order -- six FIRs filed in one night not sole basis -- overall conduct of detenu and impact on public tempo taken note of -- scope of Act different from that of judicial trial in Courts for offences and all judicial orders for prevention of offences -- even unsuccessful judicial trial would not operate as bar for detaining-- even order of acquittal in judicial trial will not put embargo on power of detention nor any such detention order can be termed as malafide -- final report of Lokayukt accepted by Special Judge or two anticipatory bail orders do not mean that detaining authority passed order of detention one xtraneous or irrelevant grounds.2021 (4) JLJ 86 relied on. [Paras 25 & 26
(6) National Security Act, 1980 -- S.3 -- Constitution of India -- Art. 226/227 -- detention order -- scope of judicial review -- detenu cannot ordinarily seek writ without surrendering and without obtaining order of detention and grounds thereof. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 496, (2008) 3 SCC 613 and (2014) 1 SCC 280 followed. [Para 29
¼1½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && èkkjk 3 && fujks/k vkns'k && izkfèkdkjh dh l{kerk && l{kerk ij bl vk/kkj ij vk{ksi fd fujks/k vkns'k ßftyk eftLVªsV@dysDVjÞ }kjk V~ohV fd;k x;k Fkk] 'kfDr fofufnZ"V izkf/kdkjh vFkkZr~ ßftyk eftLVªsVÞ dks nh xbZ gS] ßdysDVjÞ dks ugha] tks jktLo fof/k ds v/khu izkfèkdkjh gS && cgl fd izkf/kdkjh }kjk ßdysDVjÞ@ftyk eftLVªsVÞ dk mi;ksx vLi"Vrk ls fd;k x;k gS ftlls euksfu;ksx dk vHkko nf'kZr gksrk gS && vfHkfuèkkZfjr &&euksfuksx dk vHkko vkSj l{kerk nks fHkUu igyw gSa && bl cgl ds vk/kkj ij vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd ftyk eftLVªsV l{ke ugha FkkA ¼iSjk 4] 30 ,oa 31
¼2½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && èkkjk 3 && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq&226 && fujks/k vkns'k && U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr &&vRf/kd lhfer gS && U;k;ky; dk izFken`"V~;k lek/kku gksuk pkfg, fd && (i) vkns'k ml vf/kfu;e ds v/khu ikfjr ugha fd;k x;k ftlds v/khu og rFkk dfFkr :i ls ikfjr gS] (ii) mldk fu"iknu xyr O;fDr ds fo#) fd;k tkuk bZfIlr gS] (iii) og xyr iz;kstu ds fy, ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] (iv) og vLi"V] cká vkSj vlaxr vk/kkjksa ij ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] vFkok (v) ftl izkf/kdkjh us mls ikfjr fd;k mls ,slk djus dk izkf/kdkj ugha FkkA ¼1992½ lIyh&1 ,l lh lh 496 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 20
¼3½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && èkkjk 3 && fujks/k vkns'k && ßyksd O;oLFkkÞ cuk, j[kus ij izfrdwy izHkko Mkyus okyh jhfr ls dk;Z djus ls jksdus ds fy, ;kph dks fu#) fd;k x;k && vkns'k xyr iz;kstu ds fy, ikfjr ugha && fujks/k fof/k dk vkJ; fy;k tkuk pkfg, ;k ugha] ;g vo/kkfjr djus ds fy, dk;Z dh izÑfr] lhek@foLrkj vkSj xaHkhjrk rFkk yksd O;oLFkk ij mldk izHkko lqlaxr dkjd gSa && Ny dk ;k Hkwfe gM+ius dk ,dkdh ÑR; i;kZIr ugha Hkh gks ldrk gS ijarq tc ,slk ÑR; ckj&ckj gksrk gS rFkk nk#.k foLrkj dk gS rc fujksèk fof/k dk vkJ; Hkyh&Hkk¡fr fy;k tk ldrk gSA 1983 lhvkj ,y ts 22 foosfprA ¼iSjk 23 ,oa 24
¼4½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && èkkjk 3 && fujks/k vkns'k && fujksèk izkf/kdkjh us fu#) O;fDr }kjk Hkwfe gM+ih tkus dh vusd ?kVukvksa dk mYys[k fd;k && dsoy ,d eksgYys rd lhfer ugha && Hkwfe gM+ius dk vfHkdFku O;kid vkSj xaHkhj foLrkj dk && vkns'k vLi"V] cká ;k vlaxr vkèkkjksa ij vk/kkfjr ughaA ¼iSjk 25
¼5½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && èkkjk 3 && fujks/k vkns'k && ,d gh jkf= esa Qkby dh xbZ Ng izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ ,dek= vk/kkj ugha && fu#) O;fDr ds lexz vkpj.k rFkk yksd lfØ;rk ij izHkko ij /;ku fn;k x;k && vfèkfu;e dh 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, leLr U;kf;d vkns'kksa dh vf/kdkfjrk ls fHkUu && vlQy U;kf;d fopkj.k Hkh fujks/k ds fy, otZu ds :i esa izofrZr ugha gksxk && U;kf;d fopkj.k esa nks"keqfDr ds vkns'k ls Hkh fujks/k dh 'kfDr ij vf/kjks/k ugha yxsxk] u gh ,sls fdlh fujks/k vkns'k dks vln~Hkkfod dgk tk ldrk gS && fo'ks"k U;k;k/kh'k }kjk LohÑr yksdk;qDr ds vafre izfrosnu vFkok nks vfxze tekur vkns'kksa dk ;g vFkZ ugha fd fujks/k izkf/kdkjh us fujks/k dk vkns'k cká ;k vlaxr vk/kkjksa ij ikfjr fd;kA 2021¼4½ ts ,y ts 86 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 25 ,oa 26
¼6½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && èkkjk 3 && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq&226@227 && fujks/k vkns'k &&Ukf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr && fu#) O;fDr lkekU;r% Lo;a dks izLrqr fd, fcuk fujks/k dk vkns'k vkSj mlds vk/kkj izkIr fd, fcuk fjV dh bZIlk ugha dj ldrkA ¼1992½ lIyh& 1 ,l lh lh 496] ¼2008½3 ,l lh lh 613 rFkk ¼2014½1 ,l lh lh 280 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 29
ORDER
Paul, J. -- In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs for his relative (detenu):-
“a) Pass the appropriate order restraining the respondent No.1 not to act in malafide, illegal and arbitraty manner and for respondent No.2 for not acting on false and frivolous report submitted by respondent No.1 under section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980: and
b) Pass appropriate order to set aside the detention order dated 19.2.2021 passed by Respondent No.1 and the order passed by respondent No.2 under section 3(4) of the National Security Act, 1980 acting on false report submitted by respondent No.1 and
c) Pass appropriate order(s) to respondent No.3 not to act in malafide manner and curtail the liberty of the petitioner in relation to the 6 FIRs (being FIR No.0160/2021 dt 17.2.2021 and FIR No.0162/2021 dated 10.8.2021 filed in the Khajrana Police station, Indore (b) FIR No.0159/2021 dated 17.2.2021 and FIR No.0161/2021 dated 18.2.2021 filed in Khajrana Police Station, Indore (c) FIR No.0131/2021 dated 18.2.2021 and FIR No.0132/2021 dated 18.2.2021 filed in MIG Colony Police Station, Indore) registered on the basis of false allegation with respect to these FIRs registered in contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court in T.T Antony Case and Amit Anil Chandra Bhai Shah case wherein it was held that 2 FIRs cannot be registered arising out of the same subject manner held to be illegal.
d) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass any such other order or orders as may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner; and/or;
e) That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to award costs to the petitioner”
2. Indisputably, in this petition, petitioner has assailed the detention order before its communication and execution. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for State fairly submitted that the scope of interference at this stage is very limited and the litmus test for exercise of such jurisdiction is laid down in extenso in Additional Secretary to the Government of India & Ors. v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia & another (1992) Supp 1 SCC 496. The test laid down is mentioned in para No.30.
3. Shri Vinod Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the test No.(iii) to (v) aforesaid are squarely applicable in the instant case. Thus, at pre execution stage also, this Court can exercise jurisdiction and it is a fit case where necessary ingredients for exercise of such jurisdiction are available.
4. To elaborate, Shri Prasad placed reliance on two tweets of District Magistrate/Collector dated 18.2.2021 and 19.2.2021. The petitioner came to know about the passing of detention order regarding his father detenu from the aforesaid tweets of District Magistrate/Collector. Shri Prasad submits that the National Security Act, 1980 (for short “NSA Act”) empowers the State Government to detain a person and it can delegate such power of detention to the District Magistrate. However, this power is given to a specific authority namely “District Magistrate” and not to a “Collector” who is an authority under the revenue laws. The competent authority exercising power of detention must know in which capacity he is exercising the drastic power of detention. The casual use of designation ‘Collector/District Magistrate’ by the said authority itself shows that he is aware of source of his power and with the same casualness he must have passed the detention order.
5. The next contention is that this Court in WP No.7248/2014 (PIL) considered the question of correctness of decision of regularisation of a colony namely “Hina Palace Colony”. This Court affirmed the regularisation process and, therefore, the said colony cannot be subject matter of FIR or invocation of detention law.
6. It is pointed out that as many as six FIRs were lodged in the intervening night between 17.2.2021 and 1
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....
Preventive detention requires clear, compelling reasons linked to public order; mere apprehensions are insufficient.
Preventive detention for a person in custody is valid only if the detaining authority explicitly records awareness of the custody status, assesses the real possibility of release on bail, and conclud....
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 ....
Detention can be legally imposed on individuals already in jail if justified by circumstances and substantial evidence of future prejudicial activity.
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
