Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(MP) 730

High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Sujoy Paul, Anil Verma, JJ.
DILIP SISODIA - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF M. P. & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
W. P. No. 12203 of 2021
Decided On : 22-09-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant : Vinod Prasad, Sumit Mittal
For Respondent: Pushyamitra Bhargav

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 Act, 1980. The judgment also emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in preventive detention cases.

Headnote:
National Security Act - Detention Order - Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of the National Security Act, 1980, particularly focusing on section 3(3) and the tests laid down by the Apex Court in Additional Secretary to the Government of India and ors. vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and another, (1992) Supp 1 SCC 496. The court also referred to the judgment in Samai Din vs. District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, 1983 Cri LJ 22, and emphasized the importance of the nature, scale, and gravity of an act and its impact on public order in invoking the detention law. The court highlighted the principles established by various Supreme Court judgments regarding the sufficiency of grounds for detention, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and the limited scope of judicial review in preventive detention cases.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the detention order passed under the National Security Act, 1980. The petitioner argued that the detention order was based on vague, extraneous, and irrelevant grounds and was a colorable exercise of power. The petitioner also contended that the detention order was founded on false and frivolous FIRs and lacked a live link between the incidents and the invocation of the detention law.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the detention order was passed for the purpose of preventing the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, as per the enabling provision in section 3 of the NSA Act. The court held that the detention order was not passed for a wrong purpose and was not based on vague, extraneous, or irrelevant grounds. The court also emphasized the importance of the nature, scale, and gravity of the detenu's activities in invoking the detention law. The court declined to interfere at the pre-execution stage, stating that the necessary ingredients for interference were not available in the instant case.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the validity of the detention order under the NSA Act, the sufficiency of the grounds for detention, the impact of the detenu's activities on public order, and the limited scope of judicial review in preventive detention cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the enabling provision in section 3 of the NSA Act, the application of the tests laid down by the Apex Court in Additional Secretary to the Government of India and ors. vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and another, and the principles established by various Supreme Court judgments regarding the sufficiency of grounds for detention, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and the limited scope of judicial review in preventive detention cases.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the necessary ingredients for interference at the pre-execution stage were not available in the instant case. The court made it clear that the detenu could surrender, obtain the detention order and grounds of detention, and assail it in appropriate fresh proceedings.

ORDER SUJOY 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 mala fide, 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 mala fide 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 and ors. vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and 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 ni