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 05.07.2023 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 22.09.2023, 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 05.07.2023, 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

3

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 vs the State of M.P. and others reported

in (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

4

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 05.07.2023. The same has been communicated to the detenu

on 11.07.2023 i.e. on the sixth day, thus, the same is clearly violative of

Section 8(1) of the Nati