1987 (1) TMI 484 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of malafides.
2. Compliance with mandatory requirements u/s 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980.

Summary:

1. Allegations of Malafides:
The petitioner alleged that the Chief Minister of Sikkim initiated the detention order due to personal vendetta. However, the court found these allegations unsupported by acceptable evidence and deemed it unnecessary to consider them. The court stated, "We do not think it necessary in all cases to call upon persons placed in high positions to controvert allegations made against them by filing affidavits unless the allegations are specific, pointed and necessary to be controverted."

2. Compliance with Mandatory Requirements u/s 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980:
The primary issue was whether the detention order was liable to be quashed due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirements u/s 8(1) of the Act. The petitioner was detained on 29-9-1986, but the grounds of detention were served only on 14-10-1986. The court emphasized that u/s 8(1), it is obligatory for the detaining authority to communicate the grounds of detention "as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days from the date of detention."

The court found no acceptable or satisfactory explanation for the delay in serving the grounds of detention. The Counter Affidavit filed by the Home Secretary did not provide sufficient details or reasons for the delay. The court noted, "This inaction after 6-10-1986 till 14-10-1986, by itself is sufficient for us to hold that Section 8(1) has been violated by the officer concerned and on that ground alone the order of detention has to be quashed."

The court rejected the respondents' argument that the delay should be condoned because the petitioner was released on bail and not in detention. The court stated, "This according to us is a specious plea which cannot stand legal scrutiny... The Section has to be interpreted literally. No relaxation is permissible."

Conclusion:
The court held that there was a flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 8(1) and quashed the order of detention. The petition was allowed.