1984 (5) TMI 264 - SC - FEMA

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order under the National Security Act, 1980.
2. Compliance with constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
3. Consideration of the representation for revocation of the detention order by the Central Government.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Detention Order under the National Security Act, 1980:
The respondent was detained under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, by the District Magistrate of Moradabad on November 6, 1982, due to his alleged involvement in communal riots and offences under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court had quashed this detention order, but the Supreme Court upheld it, emphasizing that the grounds for detention were adequately detailed and sufficient to form the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

2. Compliance with Constitutional Safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution:
Article 22(5) mandates two constitutional imperatives: (1) The detaining authority must communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu as soon as practicable, and (2) The detaining authority must afford the detenu the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the detention order. The Supreme Court found that these requirements were duly complied with. The detenu was informed of the grounds of detention on June 2, 1983, and made a representation on June 18, 1983, which was processed by the appropriate authorities within the stipulated timeframes.

3. Consideration of the Representation for Revocation of the Detention Order by the Central Government:
The respondent's representation dated July 5, 1983, addressed to the Prime Minister for revocation under section 14 of the Act, was not considered by the Central Government. The Supreme Court held that the Central Government was under no statutory obligation to consider this subsequent representation, as it was not a statutory representation for revocation under section 14. The Court referenced previous cases, including Phillippa Anne Duke v. State of Tamil Nadu, to support this view, stating that representations addressed to non-statutory authorities do not necessitate consideration by the Central Government.

The Supreme Court reiterated that the power of revocation under section 14 is a statutory power that the Central Government can exercise based on information from various sources, including the detenu. However, in this case, the Central Government had already considered an earlier representation for revocation, and there was no obligation to consider another representation addressed to the Prime Minister.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and maintaining the detention order passed by the District Magistrate under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The Court found that the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5) were duly complied with, and the Central Government was not required to consider the subsequent representation for revocation. The appeal was thus allowed, and the detention order was upheld.