2007 (4) TMI 724 - SC - Indian Laws

Quashing the order of detention - delay in disposing of the writ petition filed by the detenu - Powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 ('Act ) r/w Home Department s Order - infringement of public order - - HELD THAT - The representation is to be considered in its right perspective keeping in view the fact that the detention of the detenu is based on subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned, and infringement of the constitutional right conferred under Article 22(5) invalidates the detention order. Personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. In the result, the High Court s impugned order is clearly indefensible and is set aside - Appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment allowing habeas corpus petition based on delay in disposal of representation under National Security Act, 1980.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, which quashed the detention order based on delay in disposing of the representation made by the detenu. The High Court held that the delay was not properly explained, and the views of the sponsoring authority were deemed unnecessary. The appellant contended that this view contradicted previous Supreme Court decisions. The detenu filed a writ petition against the detention order, citing unusual delay in disposal.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of expeditiously considering representations made by detainees under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The detention order, based on subjective satisfaction, must adhere to procedural requirements to avoid infringing on the detenu's constitutional rights. The Court highlighted the significance of personal liberty protected under Article 21 and the need for strict compliance with procedural safeguards in cases of preventive detention.

The Court referenced previous cases to address the necessity of obtaining views from the sponsoring authority. In Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, the Court emphasized the importance of consulting the sponsoring authority for comments on representations, highlighting the need for a meticulous approach to preventive detention laws. Similarly, in Dr. Prakash v. State of T.N., the Court explained the standard procedure of seeking remarks from the detaining authority to ensure a fair consideration of representations.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, deeming it indefensible. However, the detaining authority was directed to decide within two months whether to take the respondent back into custody. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the necessity of following proper procedures in cases of detention under the National Security Act, 1980.