Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ravi Malimath, CJ, and Vishal Mishra, J.
Kanchan Shukla (Smt.) v. The State of M.P. & another
Writ Petition No. 16261 of 2023 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 9.10.2023
(1) National Security Act, 1980 -- Ss. 3 and 8 (1) -- communication of right to file representation against order of detention -- order passed and communicated to detenu on 5.7.2023 -- right to file representation to authorities could not be communicated -- mistake immediately rectified and letter dated 7.7.2023 issued -- same communicated to detenu on 11.7.2023 -- procedure completed by authorities within prescribed time limit. 2021 (2) JLJ 389 (FB) = (2021) 2 MPLJ 554 distinguished. [Paras 12, 14 & 24
(2) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 (2) -- order of detention -- detenu urinated upon tribal -- object was to humiliate said person -- video got viral on social media -- serious law and order situation arose across State -- victim was afraid of reporting matter because of terror of detenu in entire community and society – nobody from common public dared to make report against him – matter came to knowledge of authorities when video created law and order situation in State -- in criminal cases registered against detenu, same situation arose and nobody from society dared to give statement against him -- Superintendent of Police recorded his subjective satisfaction and forwarded matter to competent authority for initiation of proceedings u/s. 3 (2) -- only requirement for initiation of proceedings is subjective satisfaction of authorities -- detenu rightly detained in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order. (2007) 8 SCC 150 referred to. [Paras 15 to 18
(3) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 (2) -- “public order” -- not act/offence per se to be considered -- potentiality and impact which may affect even tempo of life of community thereby jeopardizing public order, has to be considered. (1970) 1 SCC 98, (1984) 4 SCC 400 and (1987) 4 SCC 685 followed. [Para 20
(4) Constitution of India -- Art. 226/227 -- National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 -- extent of interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction in matters relating to NSA -- Court entitled to scrutinise material relied upon by authority and accordingly determine if there is objective basis for subjective satisfaction -- whether grounds stated in order are sufficient or not, is not within ambit of discretion of Court. (2010) 9 SCC 618 followed. [Para 21
(5) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 (2) -- detention order -- period of detention not specified -- legislation does not require detaining authority to specify period -- order of detention not rendered illegal in absence of such specification. (1990) 2 SCC 456, (2018) 5 SCC 322 and 2023 SCC Online SC 1003 followed. [Para 25
(6) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 (1) -- single act of detenu -- act of detenu urinating on tribal infuriated society throughout State and other parts of country -- communal angle also sought to be canvassed in various social media -- public became restless and infuriated -- likely to take law into their hands -- situation getting out of control -- immediate steps had to be taken by State to prevent deterioration of law and order -- just one act of detenu threatened peace and tranquillity in State -- fit case for invocation of NSA in order to prevent repetition of such offences. Writ Petition No. 11872 of 2021 relied on. [Para 27
(7) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 (2) -- detention order -- authorities fully complied with terms and conditions mentioned in relevant provisions -- no lacunae pointed out -- no infraction of law -- subjective satisfaction of authorities based on facts and circumstances -- petition dismissed. [Para 28
¼1½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 & /kkjk 3 rFkk 8¼1½ & fujks/k vkns'k ds fo:) vH;kosnu çLrqr djus ds vf/kdkj dh lalwpuk & 5-7-2023 dks vkns'k ikfjr vkSj fu:) O;fä dks lalwfpr & çkf/kdkjhx.k ds le{k vH;kosnu çLrqr djus dk vf/kdkj lalwfpr ugha fd;k tk ldk & Hkwy rqjar lq/kkjh xbZ vkSj i= fnukad 7-7-2023 tkjh fd;k x;k & 11-7-2023 dks og fu:) O;fä dks lalwfpr fd;k x;k & çkf/kdkjhx.k }kjk çfØ;k fofgr le;kof/k esa iw.kZ dh xbZA 2021 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 389 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ % ¼2021½ 2 ,e ih ,y ts 554 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 12] 14 ,oa 24½
¼2½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 & /kkjk 3¼2½ & fujks/k vkns'k & fu:) O;fä us vkfnoklh ij ew= fd;k & mn~ns'; mä O;fä dks viekfur djus dk Fkk & ohfM;ks lkekftd ehfM;k ij ok;jy gks x;k & laiw.kZ jkT; esa fof/k vkSj O;oLFkk dh xaHkhj leL;k mRiUu gks xbZ & laiw.kZ leqnk; vkSj lekt esa fu:) O;fä ds vkrad ds dkj.k ihfM+r O;fä ekeys dh fjiksVZ djus ls Mj jgk Fkk & tulkekU; ls dksbZ Hkh mlds fo:) fjiksVZ djus dk lkgl ugha dj ik jgk Fkk & ekeyk çkf/kdkjhx.k dh tkudkjh esa rc vk;k tc ohfM;ks ds dkj.k jkT; esa fof/k vkSj O;oLFkk dh leL;k l`ftr gks xbZ & fu:) O;fä ds fo:) jftLVªhÑr nkafMd çdj.kksa esa ,slh gh fLFkfr mRiUu gqbZ Fkh vkSj lekt esa ls fdlh us Hkh mlds fo:) dFku nsus dk lkgl ugha fd;k & iqfyl v/kh{kd us viuk O;fäijd lekèkku vfHkfyf[kr fd;k vkSj /kkjk 3¼2½ ds v/khu dk;Zokgh vkjaHk fd, tkus ds fy, ekeyk l{ke çkf/kdkjh dks vxzsf"kr fd;k & dk;Zokgh vkjaHk djus ds fy, ,dek= vis{kk çkf/kdkjhx.k dk O;fäijd lek/kku gS & yksd O;oLFkk cuk, j[kus ij çfrdwy çHkko Mkyus okyh jhfr ls dk;Z djus ls jksdus ds fy, fu:) O;fä dks Bhd gh fu:) fd;k x;kA ¼2007½ 8 ,l lh lh 150 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 15 ls 18½
¼3½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 & /kkjk 3¼2½ & ^^yksd O;oLFkk** & Lo;a —R;@vijk/k ij fopkj ugha fd;k tkuk gksrk & leqnk; ds thou dh y; çHkkfor dj yksd O;oLFkk dks ladVxzLr djus dh laHkkouk vkSj vlj ij fopkj fd;k tkuk gksrk gSA ¼1970½ 1 ,l lh lh 98] ¼1984½ 4 ,l lh lh 400 rFkk ¼1987½ 4 ,l lh lh 685 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 20½
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226@227 & jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 & /kkjk 3 & fjV vf/kdkfjrk ds ç;ksx esa jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e ls lacaf/kr ekeyksa esa gLr{ksi dh lhek & U;k;ky; çkf/kdkjh }kjk voyafcr lkexzh dh laoh{kk djus rFkk rnuqlkj ;g vo/kkfjr djus dk gdnkj fd O;fäijd lek/kku ds fy, oLrqijd vk/kkj gS ;k ugha & vkns'k esa dfFkr vk/kkj i;kZIr gSa ;k ugha- ;g U;k;ky; ds foosdkf/kdkj dh ifjf/k esa ugha vkrkA ¼2010½ 9 ,l lh lh 618 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 21½
¼5½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 & /kkjk 3¼2½ & fujks/k vkns'k & fujksèk dh vof/k fofufnZ"V ugha & fo/kku esa fujks/k çkf/kdkjh }kjk vof/k fofufnZ"V fd, tkus dh vis{kk ugha & ,sls fofunsZ'k ds vHkko esa fujks/k vkns'k voS/k ugha gks tkrkA ¼1990½ 2 ,l lh lh 456] ¼2018½ 5 ,l lh lh 322 rFkk 2023 ,l lh lh v‚uykbu ,l lh 1003 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 25½
¼6½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 & /kkjk 3¼1½ & fu:) O;fä dk ek= ,d —R; & fu:) O;fä }kjk vkfnoklh ij ew= fd, tkus ds —R; ls laiw.kZ jkT; esa vkSj ns'k ds vU; Hkkxksa esa lekt Øksf/kr & fofHkUu lkekftd ehfM;k esa lkaçnkf;d dks.k dk Hkh çpk, djuk pkgk x;k & turk v'kkar vkSj Øksf/kr gks xbZ & fof/k vius gkFkksa esa ysus dh laHkkouk Fkh & fLFkfr fu;a=.k ls ckgj gks jgh Fkh & fof/k&OoLFkk fcxM+us ls jksdus ds fy, jkT; dks vfoyac dne mBkuk Fks & fu:) O;fä ds ek= ,d —R; ls jkT; esa pSu vkSj 'kkafr [krjs esa iM+ x, & ,sls vijk/kksa dh iqujko`fÙk jksdus ds fy, jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e dk vkJ; ysus gsrq mi;qä ekeykA fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 11872 lu~ 2021 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 27½
¼7½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 & /kkjk 3¼2½ & fujks/k vkns'k & çkfèkdkjhx.k us lqlaxr mica/kksa esa mfYyf[kr fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krksZ dk iw.kZ vuqikyu fd;k & dksbZ deh minf'kZr ugha & fof/k dk dksbZ O;frØe ugha & çkf/kdkjhx.k dk O;fäijd lek/kku rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij vk/kkfjr & ;kfpdk [kkfjtA ¼iSjk 28½
ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed by the wife of detenu namely Pravesh Shukla S/o Ramakant Shukla aged about 30 years, challenging the order of preventive detention dated 5.7.2023 passed by respondent No.2-District Magistrate Sidhi (M.P.) under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980.
2. When the matter was listed on 22.9.2023, the learned Deputy Advocate General sought time to counter the rejoinder filed by the petitioner. When the Court was inclined to grant time, the same was strongly objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the petition must be heard today itself. In spite of intimating to him that the reply to the rejoinder may be necessary for the determination of the case, he insisted time and again that irrespective of the same, the matter has to be heard today. It is for this reason that we have proceeded to hear the matter finally.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 5.7.2023, a video got viral on social media with respect to an incident of urination that took place in Sidhi district in which the detenu was urinating upon the victim namely Dashmat Rawat, a Kol tribal. The said video got viral on the news media. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Sidhi upon the recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police District Sidhi has initiated proceedings under the National Security Act, 1980 against him.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that neither the parameters as envisaged under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the National Security Act have been followed nor is there any specified period of detention reflected from the impugned order. The order is violative of fundamental rights and is contrary to Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India which provides that a person detained has a right to make a representation against the order of detention not only before the Advisory Board but also before the detaining authority. Placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kamal Khare and others v. the State of M.P. and others reported in 2021(2) JLJ 389 = (2021) 2 MPLJ 554 with reference to paras 28 and 48 thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to quash the detention order.
5. It is further argued that no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing has been issued or provided to the detenu prior to passing of the impugned order. It is submitted that the detention order was not communicated to the detenu. He was taken into custody on the same day. The right envisaged under section 8(1) of the National Security Act that the detenu should be informed regarding his right to make a representation even before the detaining authority has not been provided to him. He has drawn attention of this Court to the reply which has been submitted by the authorities pointing out the fact that the Superintendent of Police has found three cases which were registered against the detenu. He has brought on record the judgments passed by the trial Court to show that the detenu has been acquitted in two cases and one case for a minor offence registered in 2023 is pending consideration. Therefore, there was no reason for taking action against the detenu under the National Security Act. He has placed reliance on the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the National Security Act and has argued that the detaining authority should communicate the order of detention immediately or ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for the reasons to be recorded in writing not later than ten days from the date of detention and to communicate the grounds of detention. The same has not been done in the present case. No exceptional circumstances have been pointed out by the authorities. The detention order was passed on 5.7.2023. The same has been communicated to the detenu
The detention order was quashed due to procedural violations and lack of connection between the detenu's past conduct and the necessity for detention under the National Security Act.
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....
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
