1987 (7) TMI 574 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.
2. Inordinate delay in considering the representation by the Chief Minister.
3. Compliance with constitutional safeguards u/s Art. 22(5) of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Detention Order u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980:
The appellant was detained by an order dated September 7, 1986, passed by the District Magistrate, Beed, under s. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The appellant challenged this order on the grounds of infraction of constitutional safeguards enshrined in Art. 22(5) read with s. 8 of the Act, citing inordinate and unexplained delay in the consideration and disposal of his representation.

2. Inordinate Delay in Considering the Representation by the Chief Minister:
The appellant made a representation to the Chief Minister on September 22, 1986, which was forwarded to the Home Department on September 24, 1986. The State Government approved the detention order on September 18, 1986. The Advisory Board considered the appellant's representation on October 8, 1986, and recommended confirmation of the detention on October 13, 1986. However, the Chief Minister did not consider the representation until November 17, 1986, resulting in an unexplained and unreasonable delay. The Supreme Court found this delay sufficient to render the continued detention of the appellant illegal.

3. Compliance with Constitutional Safeguards u/s Art. 22(5) of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the State Government has a duty to process the representation of the detenu promptly and independently of the Advisory Board's opinion. The Court noted that the constitutional right to make a representation includes the right to a proper and expeditious consideration of that representation. The delay in the Chief Minister's Secretariat, attributed to the Chief Minister's preoccupation with state matters and cabinet meetings, was deemed unacceptable. The Court reiterated that the gravity of the appellant's alleged anti-social activities does not justify the invasion of personal liberty without strict adherence to procedural safeguards.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the inordinate delay in considering the appellant's representation violated the constitutional safeguards under Art. 22(5), rendering the continued detention of the appellant invalid and constitutionally impermissible. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith.