High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Sujoy Paul, Anil Verma, JJ.
SONU BAIRWA - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF M. P. & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
W. P. No. 9878 of 2021
Decided On : 07-07-2021
NSA Act - Detention of petitioner under section 3(2) read with (3) of National Security Act, 1980 - The court discussed the provisions of the NSA Act, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The court highlighted the interpretation of 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community' and its exclusion under the NSA Act. The court also emphasized 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.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was detained under the NSA Act for allegedly indulging in black marketing of Remedesivir injections, causing a threat to public order during the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner challenged the detention order on various grounds including non-application of mind by the District Magistrate and absence of subjective satisfaction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was not passed mechanically and the District Magistrate had used discretion in accordance with the law. The court held that the detention was justified as the petitioner's actions posed a threat to public order and the maintenance of essential supplies and services.
Issues: The issues included the correctness of the detention order, the application of mind by the authorities, and the interpretation of the provisions of the NSA Act and related laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized 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 court also clarified the limited impact of the 'explanation' in the NSA Act and its exclusion of cases covered by the Black Marketing Act.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no flaw in the decision-making process adopted by the District Magistrate and held that the detention was justified under the NSA Act.
ORDER SUJOY PAUL, J. – The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the order dated 17-5-2021 whereby the District Magistrate in exercise of power under section 3(2) read with (3) of National Security Act, 1980 (for short “NSA Act”) detained the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was detained by District Magistrate by stating that the petitioner indulged in black marketing of Remedesivir injections. Two such injections were recovered from him. In a situation when highest numbers of Covid patients were there at Indore, the act of petitioner has caused serious threat to the ‘public order’. In view of aforesaid conduct, the detention order was passed and the grounds therefor were supplied to him.
3. Criticizing this order Shri Maheshwari, learned counsel for petitioner submits that detention order was supplied to the uncle of the petitioner and it was not supplied to his parents. This runs contrary to the observations made by Supreme Court in A. K. Roy vs. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 271.
4. The next contention is that the petitioner was already in custody because of an FIR lodged prior in time. Subsequently, petitioner was formally arrested and detained under the NSA Act. The District Magistrate and State government in relevant documents mentioned the status of petitioner as “absconding”. This information was factually incorrect and had potential to adversely affect the process of application of mind by the State government, Advisory Board or Central Government. Reliance is placed on a recent order passed by this Court in W. P. No. 9792/2021, Yatindra Verma vs. State of M. P. decided on 24-6-2021.
5. Shri Maheshwari placed reliance on various social media posts of the Chief Minister of the State wherein he expressed his opinion that the persons indulged in black marketing of Remedesivir injections are liable to be detained under the NSA Act. The order of detention passed by District Magistrate amounts to acting under dictate is the next contention of Shri Maheshwari. Thus, subjective satisfaction and element of application of mind was absent on the part of the District Magistrate. By taking assistance of (1975) 2 SCC 81, Khudiram Das vs. State of W. B. and ors. and 2020 SCC Online Alld., Dr. Kafeel Khan vs. State of U. P. it is submitted that in a matter of this nature where fundamental rights and right of freedom of a citizen sought to be taken away, the authorities were required to act with utmost care and caution. Reliance is placed to ‘Explanation’ to sub-section (2) of section 3 of NSA Act. It is submitted that the Explanation, in no uncertain terms, makes it clear that if somebody acted in a manner which is prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community but such act falls within the ambit of The Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Blackmarketing Act) such person cannot be detained under the NSA Act. To elaborate, it is submitted that section 3(29) of General Clauses Act talks about “Indian Laws” which is wide enough to include the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and also the Blackmarketing Act. The “drug” is the first entry in the Schedule appended to The Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Thus, the detention under the NSA Act runs contrary to the aforesaid explanation. Lastly, Shri Maheshwari submits that a person already arrested can very well be detained under the NSA Act, but in order to detain him further, certain conditions are to be fulfilled which were considered by this Court in extenso in Yatindra Verma (supra). These conditions were not satisfied in the instant case. It was not mentioned that there is a likelihood of petitioner’s indulging in the same activity or committing act of blackmarketing of Remedisivir injection again. For these cumulative reasons, the detention order is liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned A.A.G for the St
Deepak Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra
M. P. Cement Manufacturers Association vs. State of M. P. and ors.
Ajay Maken vs. Adesh Kumar Gupta and anr.
Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and ors.
Konungjao Singh vs. State of Manipur and ors.
Rajkumar Singh vs. State of Bihar
S. Sundaram Pillai and ors. vs. V. R. Pattabiraman and ors.
Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat vs. Shri Kantilal Trikamlal
First Income Tax Officer, Salem vs. Short Brothers (P) Ltd.
RBI vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.
Khudiram Das vs. State of W. B. and ors.
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 interpretation of the NSA Act, particularly the provisions related to the maintenance of public order and essential supplies and services, and ....
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.