2008 (11) TMI 607 - SC - Indian Laws

Detention orders - Held that - Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The question is as to whether it would be desirable to take the respondents back to custody. Such a decision shall be taken by the Government within two months.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment allowing Writ Petition to quash detention order dated 10.5.1993.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case challenges the judgment of a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondents seeking to quash the detention order dated 10.5.1993. The High Court restrained the respondents from enforcing the order dated 10.5.1993 but granted them liberty to pass a fresh order if required. The appellants argued that granting liberty to pass a fresh order contradicted the finding that the original order had become infructuous due to the lapse of time during which a stay was in operation. The legal principles governing interference with detention orders were discussed, emphasizing that courts can intervene at the pre-execution stage if certain conditions are met, such as the order being passed for a wrong purpose or on extraneous grounds. The limitations on the jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court in such matters were outlined, highlighting that the courts do not correct mere errors of law or facts and do not interfere on the merits unless there are exceptional circumstances warranting intervention.

The issue of challenging a detention order without the detenu submitting or surrendering to it was also addressed, citing previous judgments that examined this question. The judgment emphasized the need for detenus to surrender before challenging the detention order on its merits. The Supreme Court reiterated that a person cannot avoid service of a detention order and later claim it to be infructuous due to the passage of time. The Court highlighted that even if a detenu stalls service of the order, the plea that the order has become stale should be rejected. Previous cases were cited to underscore these principles and the importance of not allowing individuals to evade detention by delaying the process or absconding.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the judgment of the High Court was unsustainable and set it aside. The decision on whether to take the respondents back into custody was left to the Government, with a directive to make this decision within two months. The appeal was allowed, overturning the judgment of the High Court and providing clarity on the legal principles governing challenges to detention orders and the consequences of delaying or avoiding service of such orders.