1996 (10) TMI 476 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of non-communication of exceptional circumstances and reasons for non-supply of grounds of detention within five days.
2. Compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution regarding the detenu's right to make a representation.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of Non-Communication of Exceptional Circumstances
The respondents were detained u/s 3(1) of the National Security Act, 1980, by the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer, on January 7, 1987. The exceptional circumstances for non-supply of grounds and documents to the detenu were recorded on January 11, 1987, and the grounds of detention were supplied on January 16, 1987. The High Court held the order of detention violative of Article 22(5) due to non-communication of the exceptional circumstances and reasons to the detenu. The Supreme Court, however, held that it is not a condition that exceptional circumstances or reasons need to be supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention. The Act does not envisage communication of the exceptional circumstances and reasons recorded for non-supply of the grounds within five days but before the expiry of ten days. Therefore, non-communication of these circumstances does not vitiate the order of detention.

Issue 2: Compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution
The detenu made representations to the State Government and the Advisory Board, which were rejected. The Supreme Court emphasized that the grounds of detention and supporting material must be supplied to the detenu as early as possible, ordinarily within five days, and in exceptional circumstances within ten days, as mandated by Section 8(1) of the Act. The Court clarified that the phrase "as soon as may be" means within reasonable dispatch when there is no avoidable delay. The Division Bench's view that non-supply of exceptional circumstances and reasons recorded for non-supply of grounds within five days breaches the detenu's right to make a representation at the earliest opportunity was held incorrect. The Supreme Court concluded that the detenu's right to representation is not breached by non-communication of exceptional circumstances and reasons, provided the grounds of detention are supplied within ten days.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the view taken in Batti's case is not correct in law. The District Magistrate's recorded reasons for the delay in supplying the grounds of detention were considered valid exceptional circumstances. The High Court's decision was overturned, but since the detention period had expired, no further action was taken. The appeals were accordingly allowed.