Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ravi Malimath, C.J. and Vishal Mishra, J.
Poonam Gupta v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition No. 1243 of 2023 (Jabalpur); Decided on 31.3.2023
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 (2) -- detention order -- scope of interference -- Court would interfere only on limited grounds with subjective satisfaction of detaining authority -- material relied upon by detaining authority for subjective satisfaction should be so flimsy or unacceptable that no common man would come to such conclusion -- no intervention called for when grounds of detention clear and unambiguous. Criminal Appeal No. 417 of 2012 decided on 21.2.2012 followed. [Para 15]
(2) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 (2) -- detention order -- application of mind -- there cannot be mere assumption of non-application of mind because of hurry in passing order -- one would have to plead and prove that such order could not have been passed in such short period of time -- considering material, proximity of offices and that file was carried by hand from one office to another, and that there was absolute urgency in issuing order of preventive detention, non-application of mind cannot be deduced -- if authorities applied their mind to case and passed reasoned order, that would constitute application of mind -- merely because they discharged their duties in just and quick manner, does not entail only conclusion that it has been done in rash or negligent manner or without application of mind. [Paras 17 & 19]
(3) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 (2) -- detention order -- delay in considering representation -- representation had to be routed through State Government as well as Central Government -- detenu involved in as many as 16 cases -- material in each case had to be considered -- time taken in consideration of material just and appropriate -- cannot be said to vitiate orders of preventive detention. (1970) 1 SCC 219, (1972) 1 SCC 498, (2006) 7 SCC 337 and (2008) 5 SCC 490 followed. 2023 (3) JLJ 48 (SC) = 2021 SCC Online SC 1019 referred to. [Para 23]
(4) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 (2) -- detention order -- solitary ground for ordering preventive detention -- detenu played active role in bringing dead body of deceased advocate into High Court premises -- attempted to carry dead body to various halls of Court -- serious law and order issue -- firstly, there was sufficient material available with respondents to pass impugned order -- secondly, it is not necessary to establish each ground to sustain order of preventive detention -- even single ground in grounds of detention is sufficient to sustain order of preventive detention. (2015) 12 SCC 127 and (2005) 10 SCC 97 followed. [Para 26]
(5) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 (2) -- detention order -- Executive not debarred from issuing order of preventive detention in view of fact that FIR has been lodged and prosecution has been initiated -- order of preventive detention will still lie along with prosecution for offence. (1975) 3 SCC 198 and (2015) 12 SCC 127 followed. [Para 28]
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 & èkkjk 3¼2½ & fujks/k vkns'k & gLr{ksi dh O;kfIr & fujks/k vf/kdkjh ds O;fDrijd lek/kku esa U;k;ky; lhfer vk/kkjksa ij gh gLr{ksi djsxk & fujks/k vf/kdkjh }kjk O;fäijd lek/kku ds fy, voyafcr lkexzh bruh >huh ;k vLohdk;Z gksuk pkfg, fd dksbZ Hkh lkekU; O;fDr ml fu"d"kZ rd ugha igqap lds & fujks/k ds vk/kkj Li"V vkSj vlafnX/k gksa rks e/;{ksi okaNuh; ughaA nkafMd vihy Øekad 417 lu~ 2012 fu.khZr fnukad 21-2-2012 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 15½
¼2½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 & /kkjk 3¼2½ & fujks/k vkns'k & euksfu;ksx & vkns'k ikfjr djus esa 'kh?kzrk djus ek= ds dkj.k euksfu;ksx ugha fd, tkus dh /kkj.kk ugha dh tk ldrh & ;g vfHkokd~ djuk gksxk vkSj lkfcr djuk gksxk fd og vkns'k bruh vYi le;kof/k esa ikfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk Fkk & lkexzh] dk;kZy;ksa dh fudVrk vkSj bl ij fopkj dj fd Qkby ,d dk;kZy; ls nwljs dk;kZy; esa O;fDrxr :i ls ys tkbZ xbZ Fkh] rFkk ;g fd fuokjd fujks/k dk vkns'k tkjh djuk vR;ar vko';d Fkk] euksfu;ksx ugha fd, tkus dk vuqeku ugha fd;k tk ldrk & ;fn Ákf/kdkjhx.k us Ádj.k esa euksfu;ksx fd;k rFkk ldkj.k vkns'k ikfjr fd;k] rks og euksfu;ksx gksxk & ek= blfy, fd mUgksaus vius drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu _tqrk vkSj 'kh?kzrk ls fd;k] ;g ,dek= fu"d"kZ ugha fudysxk fd og mrkoysiu ls ;k mis{kkoku~ jhfr ls vFkok fcuk euksfu;ksx ds fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 17 ,oa 19½
¼3½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 & /kkjk 3¼2½ & fujks/k vkns'k & vH;kosnu ij fopkj esa foyac & vH;kosnu dks jkT; ljdkj ds lkFk gh dsUæ ljdkj ds ek/;e ls Hkh vxzlj gksuk Fkk & fu#) O;fDr 16 Ádj.kksa esa vkfyIr & ÁR;sd Ádj.k dh lkexzh ij fopkj fd;k tkuk Fkk & lkexzh ij fopkj djus ds fy, yxk le; U;k;ksfpr vkSj leqfpr & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd blls fuokjd fujks/k ds vkns'k nwf"kr gks x,A ¼1970½ 1 ,l lh lh 219] ¼1972½ 1 ,l lh lh 498] ¼2006½ 7 ,l lh lh 337 rFkk ¼2008½ 5 ,l lh lh 490 vuqlfjrA 2023 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 48 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ % 2021 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,l lh 1019 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 23½
¼4½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 & /kkjk 3¼2½ & fujks/k vksn'k & fuokjd fujks/k vknsf'kr djus ds fy, ,dek= vk/kkj & fu#) O;fDr us e`r vfèkoDrk dk 'ko mPp U;k;ky; ifjlj esa ykus esa lfØ; Hkwfedk dk fuokZg fd;k & 'ko dks U;k;ky; ds fofHkUu d{kksa esa ys tkus dk Á;kl fd;k & fof/k&OoLFkk dk xaHkhj eqn~nk & ÁFker% ÁR;FkhZx.k ds ikl vkf{kIr vkns'k ikfjr djus ds fy, i;kZIr lkexzh Fkh & f}rh;r% fuokjd fujks/k ds vkns'k ds leFkZu esa ÁR;sd vkèkkj fl) djuk vko';d ugha & fujks/k ds vk/kkjksa esa ls ,d vk/kkj Hkh fuokjd fujksèk ds vkns'k dk leFkZu djus ds fy, i;kZIr gSA ¼2015½ 12 ,l lh lh 127 rFkk ¼2005½ 10 ,l lh lh 97 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 26½
¼5½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 & /kkjk 3¼2½ & fujks/k vksn'k & dk;Zikfydk bl rF; dh n`f"V ls fuokjd fujks/k dk vkns'k tkjh djus ls fooftZr ugha fd ÁFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky dj nh xbZ gS vkSj vfHk;kstu vkjaHk dj fn;k x;k gS & vijk/k ds fy, vfHk;kstu ds lkFk Hkh fuokjd fujks/k dk vkns'k vfLrRo esa jgsxkA ¼1975½ 3 ,l lh lh 198 rFkk ¼2015½ 12 ,l lh lh 127 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 28½
ORDER
1. This petition is filed by the wife of the detenu seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 27.10.2022 by which the District Magistrate, Jabalpur in exercise of the powers conferred under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short “the NSA”) has placed the detenu under preventive detention.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that based on the report of respondent No.3, namely, the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, the respondents conducted proceedings against the husband of the petitioner under section 3(2) of the NSA. It was, therefore, recommended for his detention for a period of three months from the date of the said order. Thereafter, the said period was extended by a further period of three months. The same has been done without granting any opportunity of hearing to him. That there are 16 cases pending against the husband of the petitioner, out of which 13 cases have been decided by the Court in which the detenu was acquitted. Only three cases are pending against him out of which two cases are of the year 2022. He has apparently been detained for the offences registered in Crime Nos. 253 of 2022 and 254 of 2022 at Police Station, Civil Lines, Jabalpur. Hence, the instant petition has been filed seeking to set aside the impugned order of detention dated 27.10.2022.
3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondents have issued yet another order of detention dated 28.12.2022 extending the period of detention by a further period of three months from 27.1.2023 till 27.4.2023. Hence, both the orders are under challenge in the instant petition.
4. Various grounds have been raised in the petition in order to question the orders of detention. One of the main grounds being urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that there was an inordinate hurry in passing the orders of detention. However, we do not find that such a pleading was specifically taken by the writ petitioner. However, we have heard learned counsel on the same.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground urged by him at the time of hearing may kindly be considered. A reply to the same has also been filed by the State. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner to assail the orders of preventive detention is firstly on the ground that there was an absolute urgency by the authority, as a result of lack of application of mind, while passing the orders of detention. He places reliance on the report of the proceedings in the daily diary (Roznamcha Sanha) of the Station House Officer, Police Station, Civil Lines, Jabalpur which has been produced by him vide Annexure P/6. The same can be found at page 93 to 95 of the writ petition. The learned counsel contends that the said report would indicate that it was furnished to the Collector on 27.10.2022 at 17.57 hours. Thereafter, the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur and thereafter to the District Magistrate who has passed the order on the very same day. Therefore, when such a huge report has been submitted, the concerned authorities should have adequate time to consider the same. When the initial report itself has been issued at 17.57 hours, the question of issuing the detention order on the very same day, cannot be accepted. The only conclusion that can be drawn is to the effect that there was non-application of mind and complete urgency in issuing the order of detention dated 27.10.2022. That it was a premeditated decision by the respondents to keep the detenu under custody.
6. The second ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that subsequent to the order of detention dated 27.10.2022 being passed, he submitted a representation on 3.11.2022 through his advocate Shri Manish Mishra. Thereafter, on 4.11.2022, the representation was forwarded for comments to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur. On 22.11.2022, the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur by his opinion addressed to the D
Preventive detention under the National Security Act requires clear justification of public order disturbances, adherence to procedural safeguards, and can be validated by prior criminal history.
The detaining authority must be aware of all material circumstances and provide complete information, and there is a constitutional obligation to afford timely representation.
Preventive detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act requires the detaining authority to provide grounds for detention and adhere to procedural safeguards, but the subjective satisfacti....
Point of Law : Preventive detention - Grounds of detention - It is obligatory on part of Government to show by filing a counter affidavit that it had acted promptly in dealing with representation - P....
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 ....
Preventive detention under the National Security Act requires subjective satisfaction of the authorities that the detenue is likely to disturb public order based on gathered evidence and present cond....
The failure to consider a detenue's representation against preventive detention violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering the detention invalid.
The detention order must be based on compelling reasons, and the detaining authority must supply all material forming the basis of the detention to enable effective representation. Failure to do so r....
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
