Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vijay Kumar Shukla and Duppala Venkata Ramana, JJ.
Akbar @ Lala s/o Raees Bose Through Nazma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition No. 20071 of 2024 (Indore); Decided on 6.9.2024
(1) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 -- period of detention not mentioned in order of detention -- would not render it illegal -- by implication, minimum and maximum period has to be read in order of detention as per S. 3 -- however, detention order cannot be beyond maximum period prescribed under Act. 1998 SCC (Cri.) 914 overruled in (1990) 2 SCC 456 and (2018) 5 SCC 322. 2019 SCC Online MP 6715 relied on. Writ Petition No. 18047 of 2019 decided on 24.9.2019 and Writ Petition No. 3154 of 2019 decided on 28.3.2019 referred to. [Para 8]
(2) National Security Act, 1980 -- Ss. 3(2) and 8 -- representation against order of detention -- right to make representation against order of detention mentioned in order -- there is no violation of S. 8. (1994) 2 SCC 355 followed. (1995) 4 SCC 51 and 2014 (3) JLJ 387 referred to. [Para 11]
(3) National Security Act, 1980 -- Ss. 3(2) and 10 -- placing matter before Advisory Board -- word “place” cannot be interpreted to mean that Board has to consider and decide case within three weeks -- provision of S. 10 cannot be read in isolation -- it has to be read along with Ss. 11, 12 and 13 -- no period prescribed under Act for taking decision on reference -- however, u/s. 13, maximum period of detention is prescribed which is 12 months from date of detention -- therefore, entire procedure has to be completed before maximum period of 12 months. [Para 14]
(4) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3(2) -- writ of habeas corpus -- petition against orders of detention and extension of detention period -- period of three months has to be read in detention order by implication -- State Government extended period for three months -- this is not beyond maximum period of 12 months -- there is no illegality in order. (1990) 2 SCC 456 and (2018) 5 SCC 322 followed. [Para 15]
(5) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3(2) -- scope of jurisdiction -- very narrow and limited -- subjective satisfaction of detaining authority cannot be looked by High Court as appellate authority. (2008) 16 SCC 14, AIR 1967 SC 1441 and (1975) 2 SCC 81 followed. [Para 16]
¼1½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 & /kkjk 3 & fujks/kkns'k esa fujks/k dh vof/k dk mYys[k ugha & og voS/k ugha gks tk,xk & foo{kk ls] fujks/kkns'k esa èkkjk 3 ds vuqlkj U;wure vkSj vf/kdre vof/k iढ+h tkuk gksrh gS & rFkkfi] fujks/kkns'k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu fofgr vf/kdre vof/k ls vf/kd ugha gks ldrkA ¼1990½ 2 ,llhlh 456 rFkk ¼2018½ 5 ,llhlh 322 esa 1998 ,llhlh ¼fØŒ½ 914 myVk x;kA 2019 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,eih 6715 voyafcrA fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 18047 lu~ 2019 fu.khZr fnukad 24-9-2019 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 3154 lu~ 2019 fu.khZr fnukad 28-3-2019 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 8½
¼2½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 & /kkjk 3¼2½ rFkk 8 & fujks/kkns'k ds fo:) vH;kosnu & vkns'k esa fujks/kkns'k ds fo:) vH;kosnu djus ds vf/kdkj dk mYys[k & /kkjk 8 dk dksbZ vfrØe.k ughA ¼1994½ 2 ,llhlh 355 vuqlfjrA ¼1995½ 4 ,llhlh 51 rFkk 2014 ¼3½ ts,yts 387 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 11½
¼3½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 & /kkjk 3¼2½ rFkk 10 & lykgdkj cksMZ ds le{k ekeyk çLrqr djuk & 'kCn ^^çLrqr** dk fuoZpu bl vFkZ esa ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd cksMZ dks rhu lIrkg ds Hkhrj ekeys ij fopkj dj fofu'p; djuk gksxk & /kkjk 10 dk mica/k i`Fkd~ djds ugha iढ+k tk ldrk & mls /kkjk 11] 12 vkSj 13 ds lkFk iढ+k tkuk gksrk gS & funZs'k esa fofu'p; djus ds fy, vfèkfu;e ds v/khu dksbZ vof/k fofgr ugha & rFkkfi] /kkjk 13 ds v/khu fujks/k dh vf/kdre vof/k fofgr gS] tks fujks/k ds fnukad ls 12 ekl gS & vr% laiw.kZ çfØ;k 12 ekl dh vf/kdre vof/k ds iwoZ iw.kZ dh tkuk gksrh gSA ¼iSjk 14½
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 & èkkjk 3¼2½ & canh çR;{khdj.k fjV & fujks/k vkns'kksa rFkk fujks/k dh vof/k dh o`f) ds fo:) ;kfpdk & fujks/kkns'k esa foo{kk ls rhu ekl dh vof/k iढ+h tkuk gksrh gS & jkT; ljdkj us rhu ekl ds fy, vof/k cढ+kbZ & ;g 12 ekl dh vf/kdre vof/k ds ijs ugha & vkns'k esa dksbZ voS/krk ughaA ¼1990½ 2 ,llhlh 456 rFkk ¼2018½ 5 ,llhlh 322 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 15½
¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 & èkkjk 3¼2½ & vf/kdkfjrk dh O;kfIr & vR;ar ladh.kZ vkSj lhfer & mPp U;k;ky; vihy çkf/kdkjh dh Hkkafr fujks/k çkf/kdkjh ds O;fäijd lek/kku dk voyksdu ugha dj ldrkA ¼2008½ 16 ,llhlh 14] ,vkbvkj 1967 ,llh 1441 rFkk ¼1975½ 2 ,llhlh 81 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 16½
ORDER
Shukla, J. -- 1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of habeas corpus challenging the orders dated 20.3.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by District Magistrate, Indore and also the order dated 9.7.2024 (Annexure P/2) passed by the District Magistrate, Indore.
2. The present petition is filed by the detenue through the mother challenging the aforesaid orders by order dated 20.3.2024, the respondent No.2 has passed an order of detention under section 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and also the order dated 9.7.2024 whereby the period of detention has been extended for further period of three months from 12.7.2024 till 12.10.2024 by the respondent No.1. The detention order Annexure P/1 is challenged mainly on three grounds :--
(i) That, the period of detention is not mentioned in the impugned order, therefore, the detention is illegal as required under section 3 of the Act.
(ii) The provisions of section 8 has not been complied with as the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity to make a representation against the order to the appropriate government.
(iii) The provisions of section 10 of the Act has not been complied with as the detention order has not been placed before the advisory board constituted under section 9 within a period of three weeks from the date of detention of person.
3. Per contra, Counsel for the State supported the impugned order and argued that the impugned orders are passed as per the provisions of the Act and there is no illegality in the same.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is apposite to consider the grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioner one by one. The first point raised that in the impugned order, the period of detention is not mentioned and, therefore, the impugned order is illegal. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Siddharth Jain v. State of MP & Ors. (W.P. No.18047/2019) decided on 24.9.2019. The Division Bench relying on the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and Anr. v. Gurubux Anandram Bhiryani, 1998 SCC (Cri) 914 and also the order dated 28.3.2019 passed in the case of Satyanarayan @ Narayan Luniha v. State of MP & Anr. (W.P. No.3154/2019) held that if no period of detention is mentioned and the detention is for indefinite period in the order is illegal.
5. In regard to the aforesaid counsel for the State submitted that mere non-mentioning of the period of detention in the order would not render the order of detention is illegal. The minimum and maximum period under section 3 of the Act would apply by implication. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of T. Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 1990 (2) SCC 456 and also the order passed by the Division Bench in State of M.P. v. Sahil Khan, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 6715.
6. In order to appreciate the rival submissions in regard to the ground No.1 regarding non-mentioning of period in the detention order, it is appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of section 3 of the Act:-
"3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.
(1) The Central Government or the State Government may-
(a) if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India, or
(b) if satisfied with respect to any foreigner that with a view to regulating his continued presence in India or with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from India, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained.
(2) The Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the
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.
Point of Law : It is, thus, settled that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority has to be based on objective material and any non-existent or misconceived or irrelevant consideration,....
Once a confirmatory order of detention is passed under Section 12(1) of the National Security Act, the State Government has no authority to review or extend the order. The detention becomes illegal a....
Preventive detention orders are invalid if issued against individuals already in custody, as they lack grounds for action deemed necessary to prevent prejudicial behavior.
Quash of detention order - Delay in forwarding the petitioner’s representation on the part of the District Magistrate, and also delay in disposal of the petitioner’s representation
The court established that detainees under the National Security Act must be afforded the right to legal representation, and that detention orders must adhere strictly to statutory procedures regardi....
Unexplained delays in executing detention orders, particularly when the detenu is already in custody, violate procedural safeguards, rendering the detention illegal.
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
