9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (1) TMI 200 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the detaining authority acted rather casually in the matter in issuing the order of detention and the High Court also appears to have missed the right to liberty as contained in Article 21 of the Constitution and Article 22(2) thereof, as well as the provisions of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? Whether the impugned order of detention dated 31st January, 2011, passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West District, Manipur, in regard to the detention of Yumman Somendro @ Somo @ Tiken son of Y. Roton Singh, is acceptable?
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the detention order under the National Security Act, 1980. 2. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. 3. Personal liberty under Article 21 and Article 22(2) of the Constitution. 4. Relevance of past criminal activities to the current detention order. 5. Procedural compliance under the National Security Act, 1980. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of the detention order under the National Security Act, 1980: The appellant's husband was detained under the National Security Act, 1980, by an order issued on January 31, 2011, by the District Magistrate, Imphal West District, Manipur. This detention was confirmed by the Governor of Manipur on March 18, 2011, for a period of 12 months. The appellant challenged this order in the Gauhati High Court, which upheld the detention. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the detention order was justified under the Act's provisions. 2. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority: The detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was based on the belief that the appellant's husband, if released on bail, could engage in further prejudicial activities. The authority relied on past instances where the appellant's husband had been released on bail and allegedly continued unlawful activities. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the subjective satisfaction must be based on concrete material and not mere apprehensions. The Court found that the grounds of detention did not disclose any material other than the likelihood of bail, which was insufficient to justify the detention. 3. Personal liberty under Article 21 and Article 22(2) of the Constitution: The Supreme Court emphasized that personal liberty is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which cannot be curtailed except according to the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is an exception to this rule and must be justified with substantial reasons. The Court held that the detention order violated the appellant's husband's right to personal liberty as there were no compelling reasons to detain him under the National Security Act, 1980. 4. Relevance of past criminal activities to the current detention order: The appellant's husband had been involved in several criminal cases dating back to 1994, 1995, and 1998, and had been released on bail in all these cases. The Supreme Court pointed out that these past activities did not have a direct and proximate link to the current detention order issued in 2011. The Court observed that the detaining authority failed to establish a live link between the past incidents and the necessity for the current detention, rendering the order unjustified. 5. Procedural compliance under the National Security Act, 1980: The Supreme Court scrutinized the procedural compliance under the National Security Act, 1980. The Court noted that the detaining authority must provide the detenu with the grounds of detention and the necessary documents to make a representation against the order. While these procedural requirements were met, the Court found that the substantive grounds for detention were lacking. The Court held that the detention order was issued casually and without proper appreciation of the facts, thereby violating the procedural safeguards intended to protect personal liberty. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the detention order dated January 31, 2011, was unjustified and quashed it. The Court ordered the release of the appellant's husband, emphasizing that preventive detention must be used sparingly and with due regard to constitutional rights. The appeal succeeded, and the appellant's husband was to be released from custody if not required in connection with any other case.
|
