Back
2015 Supreme(Megh) 102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
UMA NATH SINGH & T NANDAKUMAR SINGH, JJ.
Benhur M. Sangma - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya & Ors. - Respondents
WA. No. 22 of 2014 in WP(Crl) No.12 of 2013
Decided On : 14-07.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the appellant : Ms. S.G. Momin, Adv.
For the respondents: Mr. N.D. Chullai, Sr. GA, Mr. S. Sen Gupta, GA, Mr. R. Deb Nath, Adv.
The necessity for the detaining authority to have a valid subjective satisfaction based on reliable materials before passing a detention order.
Headnote:
Preventive Detention - Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995 - Section 3(1), Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India - SCC 481, 14, 51, 342, 618, 676 - The court discussed the legal provisions and interpretations related to preventive detention, emphasizing the need for extreme caution and circumspection in interfering with detention orders. The judgment highlighted the importance of protecting individual liberty and the necessity for the detaining authority to have a valid subjective satisfaction based on reliable materials before passing a detention order.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/detenu challenged the impugned detention order dated 29-09-2013 issued under the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995, while he was in custody for multiple criminal cases. The detaining authority alleged that the detenu's release would be prejudicial to public order and the safety of citizens.
Finding of the Court:
The court found non-application of mind by the detaining authority and held that the satisfaction for the detention order was merely ipse dixit. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the appellant/detenu was set at liberty.
Issues: Non-application of mind by the detaining authority, subjective satisfaction for the detention order, and the legality of the impugned orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The detaining authority must have a valid subjective satisfaction based on reliable materials before passing a detention order. Non-application of mind and ipse dixit of the detaining authority can lead to the quashing of impugned orders.
Final Decision: The impugned detention order, approval order, and confirmation order were quashed and set aside, and the appellant/detenu was set at liberty.
T. Nandakumar Singh
Heard Ms. S.G. Momin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Sr. GA, assisted by Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned GA, appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. R. Deb Nath, learned CGC, appearing for the respondent No.3.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 13-03-2014 passed in the WP (Crl) No. 12 of 2013 wherein and whereunder the learned Single Judge held that the original records before the Court shows that detention order was confirmed vide order dated 04-12-2013 on the recommendation of the Advisory Board but the learned Single Judge did not consider the other grounds for assailing the impugned detention order. The appellant/detenu (Shri Benhur M. Sangma) is challenging (i) the impugned detention order dated 29-09-2013 issued by the detaining authority i.e. the District Magistrate, West Garo Hills District, Tura in exercise of his powers conferred upon him under Section 3 (1) of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, (for short MPDA), 1995, for detaining the appellant/detenu, (ii) the impugned order of the Government of Meghalaya dated 10-10-2013 under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the MPDA, 1995, for approving the impugned detention order dated 29-09-2013 and (iii) impugned confirmation order dated 04-12-2013.
3. The object of law of preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive. Preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence. It is resorted when the Executive is convinced that such detention is necessary in order to prevent the persons detained from acting in a manner prejudicial to certain objects which are specified by the law. The framers of the Constitution, being aware that preventive detention involves a serious encroachment on the right to personal liberty, took care to incorporate, in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22, certain minimum safeguards for the protection of persons sought to be preventively detained. These safeguards are required to be “zealously watched and enforced by the Court”. The Apex Court in Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab: (1981) 4 SCC 481 observed that:
“….. May be that the detenu is a smuggler whose tribe (and how their numbers increase) deserves no sympathy since its activities have paralyzed the Indian economy. But the loss of preventive detention affords only a modicum of safeguards to persons detained under them and if freedom and liberty are to have any meaning in our democratic set-up, it is essential that at least those safeguards are not denied to the detenus…….” (Ref:- Para 4 of the SCC in Rattan Singh’s case (Supra).”
4. In Vijay Narayan Singh v. Bihar : (1984) 3 SCC 14, Chinnapa Redy, J observed “our Constitution does not give a carte blanche to any organ of the State to be the sole arbiter …. Preventive detention is considered so treacherous and such an anathema to civilized thought and democratic polity that safeguards against undue exercise of the power to detain without trial have been built into the Constitution itself and incorporated as Fundamental Right ….. when demanded, where there has been any excessive detention, that is, whether the limits set by the Constitution and the Legislature have been transgressed. Preventive detention is not beyond judicial scrutiny.”
5. It is fairly settled that jurisdiction of preventive detention is “suspicious jurisdiction” based on suspicion and an action is taken with the view to preventing a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to certain activities enumerated in the detention order. Interference by a court of law at that stage must be an exception rather than a rule. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharastra v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande: (2008) 3 SCC 613 held that the Court must be conscious and mindful of the fact that jurisdiction preventive detention is “suspicious jurisdiction” based on suspicion and an action is taken with the view to preventing a perso
