Back
2015 Supreme(Manipur) 61
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, Kh.Nobin Singh, JJ.
Sanjenbam Ramananda Singh - Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate and Ors. - Resopndent
W.P. (Cril) No. 3 of 2015
Decided On : 21-04-2015
For the Petitioner:Ngongo, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Y. Ashang, Govt. Advocate and S. Rupachandra, ASG.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory and independent consideration of a detenu's representation by the appropriate Government, as required by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Detention Order - Challenge to detention order under National Security Act - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 & 25(1-C)A. Act - The court quashed the detention order and approval order on the ground of the State Government's failure to consider the representation independently, violating the petitioner's constitutional right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was detained under the National Security Act based on his alleged involvement with a banned organization. The petitioner challenged the detention order and approval order on various grounds, primarily focusing on the State Government's failure to independently consider his representation, which he argued violated his constitutional rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Government had indeed failed to consider the petitioner's representation independently, as required by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. This failure rendered the detention order invalid, leading the court to quash both the detention order and the approval order.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the State Government's failure to independently consider the petitioner's representation violated his constitutional rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Smt. Gracy Vs. State of Kerala & anr. and Moosa Husein Sanghar Vs Sate of Gujarat & ors., which emphasized the independent consideration of a detenu's representation by the appropriate Government, irrespective of the addressee of the representation.
Final Decision: The court quashed both the detention order dated 18-11-2014 and approval order dated 29-11-2014, directing the immediate release of the petitioner unless his detention was required in connection with any other case. The court also expressed dissatisfaction and urged the State Government to be mindful of the mandatory requirements when dealing with the personal liberty of a citizen.
Kh. Nobin Singh, J.
1. Heard Shri Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Y. Ashang, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents as well as Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Union of India.
2. The validity and the correctness of the impugned detention order dated 18-11-2014 and the approval order dated 29-11-2014 are being challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
3. It is alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was born and brought up at Awang Jiri under the jurisdiction of Nambol P.S., Imphal West District. While the petitioner was in the school and before the completion of the academic session of Class - X, he gave up his further studies due to poverty. The petitioner joined the banned organisation namely, United National Liberation Front (UNLF, in short) as a member in the month of February, 2009 through Shri Longjam Sanajaoba Meitei @ Boy @ Sana @ Batri @ Romi @ Sanahal of Pukhao Leitanpokpi. After joining the said banned organisation, the petitioner started working for UNLF organisation under the said Shri L. Sanajaoba who utilized the petitioner's service as a courier amongst the UNLF members in the valley districts of Manipur. As per the direction of Shri L. Sanajaoba, he along with other members of the UNLF carried out mobilisation works in Imphal West and Bishnupur Districts. The petitioner contacted Secretaries of different Clubs, Organisations, Meira Paibis and convinced the general public particularly, youngsters to wage war against the Government of India. On 21-10-2014 Shri L. Sanajaoba handed over one 7.65 mm pistol with three live rounds to him for carrying out the said mobilisation works. On 05-11-2014 at 11:00 a.m. the petitioner was arrested by the police team of CDO, Bishnupur led by Hav. Md. Islamuddin from Oinam Bazar with the recovery of 7.65 mm pistol made in U.S. and three live rounds and ammunitions from his possession and seized the same by observing formalities. The petitioner was handed over to O.C., Nambol P.S. with a written report and seized articles, on the strength of which the O.C., Nambol P.S. registered a regular case under F.I.R No. 137(11)2014 Nambol-PS u/s 20 UA(P) Act & 25(1-C)A. Act and the petitioner was remanded to police custody till 18-11-2014. While the petitioner was in police custody, the respondent No. 1 issued the detention order dated 18-11-2014 under section 3(2) of the National Security Act which was approved by the State Government on 29-11-2014.
4. The said Detention order dated 18-11-2014 and the approval order dated 29-11-2014 have been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition on various grounds. The writ petition was contested by the respondent No. 1 by filing an affidavit in opposition wherein it is stated that the detention order dated 18-11-2014 was approved by the State Government after considering the grounds of detention and other relevant documents furnished by the District Magistrate. It is further stated that the representation dated 04-12-2014 of the petitioner was forwarded both to the Central Government and the Chairman, Advisory Board on 09-12-2014. The Central Government has filed an affidavit explaining as to how the said representation dated 04-12-2014 was considered and rejected and the decision conveyed to the petitioner.
5. During the course of hearing, the counsel appearing for the petitioner has given emphasis only on one ground and has vehemently submitted that the State Government has failed to consider the representation dated 04-12-2014 of the petitioner independently before placing it before the Advisory Board and that this act of the State Government amounted to violation of the constitutional right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
6. Before considering the rival contentions of the parties, we may refer to some of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supre
