The State Government's delegation of powers under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, to District Magistrates does not require event-centric or district-specific justification and a generic authorization is valid under the statute.

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE

1. This petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari for setting aside the order of preventive detention dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by District Magistrate, Amritsar (respondent No.3), causing preventive detention of petitioner w.e.f. 23.04.2025 on expiry of the term of his last preventive detention order dated 13.03.2024.

2. At the very outset, learned senior counsel, Shri R.S. Cheema, assisted by Shri A.S. Cheema, Advocate, has candidly admitted that the order of preventive detention is not being challenged on any procedural lapse, but on merits of the allegations.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner had been subjected to the first order of preventive detention on 18.03.2023, which on its expiry was continued by second order of preventive detention dated 13.03.2024, followed by the impugned order passed on 17.04.2025 vide Annexure P-1.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in support of challenge to the impugned order of preventive detention, has raised the following grounds :

(i) The order of conferment of power upon District Magistrate cannot be by way of general/blanket order of the Governor. Instead, it is submitted that power needs to be conferred based on sensitivity and ground reality in each district, where incident of breach of public order arises;

(ii) At the time of passing of the impugned order of preventive detention, District Magistrate was not delegated with powers u/s 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (“NSA” for brevity);

(iii) Incidents forming the ground of order of preventive detention are not related to the petitioner;

(iv) Petitioner has not yet been shown as “arrested” for the murder of Gurpreet Singh Harinau, despite petitioner having been arrayed as an accused in the said murder;

(v) There is no application of mind on the part of the District Magistrate, who has blindly followed the recommendation made by SSP (Rural), Amritsar;

(vi) There is no live and proximate link between the past conduct and prospective criminality of the petitioner; and

(vii) There is no cogent material to support the existence of the impugned order of preventive detention.

5. In support of the aforesaid grounds, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various decisions, including Bhut Nath Mete Vs. The State of West Bengal , (1974) 1 SCC 645; A.K. Roy Vs. Union of India and others, (1982) 1 SCC 271; Abhay Shridhar Ambulkar Vs. S.V. Bhave , Commissioner of Police and others, (1991) 1 SCC 500; Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 754; Pesala Nookaraju Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2023) 4 SCC 641; and Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana and others, (2023) 9 SCC 587.

6. Per contra, learned senior counsel, Shri Anupam Gupta, assisted by Shri Vikram Anand, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab, has attempted to support the impugned order of preventive detention on the following grounds :

(i) In regard to conferment of power on the District Magistrate u/s 3 (2) of NSA, learned senior counsel for the State of Punjab has contended that expression “a” prefixed with expression “District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police” in section 3 (3) of NSA is not indicative of singularity;

(ii) Section 13 (2) of General Clauses Act, 1897 is relied upon to contend that in all Central enactments, words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa. For this purpose, reliance is placed upon Sahyad