1999 (2) TMI 713 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order of preventive detention can be challenged on the ground of parity under Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. The legality of the preventive detention order against the petitioner on merits.
3. The relevance of the grounds of detention being stale.
4. The non-consideration of relevant documents by the detaining authority.
5. Delay in deciding the representation by the Central Government.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the order of preventive detention can be challenged on the ground of parity under Article 14 of the Constitution:

The Full Bench addressed whether preventive detention orders could be challenged based on parity, originating from Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court concluded that the principle of parity is incompatible with the subjective satisfaction required under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The satisfaction for preventive detention is subjective and varies based on individual circumstances, thus not admitting any notion of parity. The Court emphasized that each case must be decided on its own facts, rejecting the idea that similar cases should result in similar detention outcomes. This conclusion was fortified by referencing the Supreme Court's decision in District Magistrate v. Kulbir Chand, which spurned the quashing of detention orders merely on the ground of parity.

2. The legality of the preventive detention order against the petitioner on merits:

The petitioner's detention was initially allowed by the Court on 4th December 1998, with the reasoning provided later. The grounds for detention included incidents on 9-7-1997 and 24-11-1997, involving criminal activities that disturbed public order. The Court found that the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was based on sufficient material, including the petitioner's involvement in criminal activities and threats to public order. The Court upheld the validity of the detention order, emphasizing that preventive detention aims to prevent future prejudicial activities.

3. The relevance of the grounds of detention being stale:

The petitioner argued that the first ground for detention, dated 9-7-1997, was stale as it occurred six months before the detention order. The Court held that the delay did not invalidate the detention order, as the subsequent incident on 24-11-1997 reinforced the relevance of the earlier ground. The Court noted that the live link between the prejudicial activities and the detention order was not snapped, and the grounds were not stale. The Court referred to various Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that the test of proximity is not rigid and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

4. The non-consideration of relevant documents by the detaining authority:

The petitioner contended that the detaining authority did not consider the writ petition and interim order staying his arrest, which contained his counter-version. The Court found that these documents were not relevant for the preventive detention order, as they pertained to the criminal case and not the preventive detention proceedings. The Court held that non-consideration of these documents did not vitiate the detention order, as the detaining authority had sufficient material to form subjective satisfaction.

5. Delay in deciding the representation by the Central Government:

The petitioner argued that the delay in deciding his representation by the Central Government rendered his continued detention illegal. The representation was made on 24-1-1998 and decided on 24-4-1998. The Court found that the delay was inordinate and unexplained, as the representation could have been placed before the Home Minister in the absence of the Minister of State for Home. The Court held that the delay violated the petitioner's rights, rendering his continued detention illegal. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to be released.

Conclusion:

The Full Bench concluded that preventive detention orders could not be challenged on the ground of parity under Article 14. The detention order against the petitioner was upheld on merits, and the grounds were not considered stale. The non-consideration of the writ petition and interim order did not vitiate the detention order. However, the delay in deciding the representation by the Central Government rendered the continued detention illegal, leading to the petitioner's release.