2010 (9) TMI 1217 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of Detention Order - incarceration u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 ( NS Act ) - Rights of detenue - HELD THAT - In our considered view, the grounds on which detention order is passed has no probative value and were extraneous to the scope, purpose and the object of the National Security Act. This Court in the case of Mohd. Yousuf Rather Vs. State of Jammu Kashmir and Ors. 1979 (8) TMI 222 - SUPREME COURT has observed that under Article 22(5), a detenu has two rights (1) to be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds on which his detention is based and (2) to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against his detention. The inclusion of an irrelevant or non-existent ground among other relevant grounds is an infringement of the first right and the inclusion of an obscure or vague ground among other clear and definite grounds is an infringement of the second right. No distinction can be made between introductory facts, background facts and grounds' as such; if the actual allegations were vague and irrelevant, detention would be rendered invalid. In so far as the documents on which reliance is placed, in our opinion, none of these documents provide any reasonable basis for passing the detention order. The primary reliance has been on the accused's own statement made to an Investigating Officer. This cannot be said to be sufficient to form the subjective satisfaction of the detaining Authority. Statements u/s 161, of the Cr.P.C. cannot be taken as sufficient grounds in the absence of any supportive or corroborating grounds. Section 161 statements are not considered substantive evidence, but can only be used to contradict the witness in the course of a trial. The same is clear from the wording of Section 162(1) of the Cr.P.C and has been so held time and again by this Court. In Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2007 (8) TMI 752 - SUPREME COURT . Furthermore, none of the other documents substantiate the involvement of the detenu in unlawful activities as alleged in the detention order. In regard to delay of 7 days - delay has occurred in the forwarding of the representation. This may not be inordinate; however, at no stage has there been an explanation given for this delay. The State Government or Central Government has not clarified the same and thus the delay remains unexplained. In light of the fact that none of the documents relied on by the detaining Authority in passing the detention order can be deemed to be pertinent, and the fact that the delay has remained unexplained, there is sufficient ground made out in order to quash the order of preventive detention made against the detenu.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order under the National Security Act, 1980.
2. Sufficiency and relevance of the material relied upon by the detaining authority.
3. Delay in forwarding the representation to the Central Government.
4. Procedural compliance with Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Detention Order under the National Security Act, 1980:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the detention order dated 24/09/2009 issued by the District Magistrate, Imphal West District, Manipur, against the detenu under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (NS Act). The Court noted that individual liberty is a cherished right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, which can only be curtailed according to the procedure established by law. The appellant, the wife of the detenu, challenged the detention order on the grounds that it violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

2. Sufficiency and Relevance of the Material Relied Upon by the Detaining Authority:
The Supreme Court examined the materials relied upon by the District Magistrate, including statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., arrest memo, seizure memo, and other documents. The Court emphasized that subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on pertinent material. Citing precedents, the Court held that statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and cannot solely form the basis for detention. The Court found that the grounds for detention lacked probative value and were extraneous to the scope and purpose of the NS Act. The inclusion of irrelevant or non-existent grounds rendered the detention order invalid.

3. Delay in Forwarding the Representation to the Central Government:
The Court noted a delay of 7 days (from 09/10/2009 to 16/10/2009) in forwarding the detenu's representation to the Central Government, with no explanation provided by the respondents. The Court emphasized that Article 22(5) mandates that the detenu should be afforded the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the detention order. Citing previous judgments, the Court held that unexplained delays in forwarding representations could render the detention order vulnerable.

4. Procedural Compliance with Article 22 of the Constitution of India:
The Supreme Court reiterated that procedural requirements under Article 22 are mandatory, and non-compliance with any procedural requirement can render a detention order illegal. The Court found that the procedural safeguards were not adequately followed in this case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the detention order was based on insufficient and irrelevant material and that the delay in forwarding the representation was unexplained. The Court held that the detention order violated the detenu's fundamental rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court quashed the detention order and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, allowing the appeal.