1992 JTR(SC) 280
1992 2 AICLR 8 ; 1993 AIR(SC) 473 ; 1992 AIR(SCW) 3360 ; 1992 CriLR 345 ; 1992 1 Crimes(SC) 1250 ; 1993 CrLJ 303 ; 1992 2 JT 342 ; 1993 1 RCR(Cri) 450 ; 1992 1 Scale 739 ; 1993 Supp1 SCC 392 ; 1993 SCC(Cri) 121 ; 1992 2 UJ 94 ; 1993 KHC 588
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH, R. M. SAHAI AND R. C. PATNAIK, JJ.
Jai Prakash, Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, U. P. and another, Respondents.
Writ Petn. (Criminal) No. 1342 of 1991
Decided on 30-3-1992.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.22(5)
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT : S.3, S.8
(A) The National Security Act, 1980, sections three and eight, read with article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, govern the procedure and safeguards for preventive detention. The authority must inform the detenu of the right to represent to both the State and Central Governments, and the designated officers are obligated to forward representations to the appropriate authorities to ensure a valid opportunity to be heard. The State is responsible for ensuring that representations reach the Central Government when the detenu addresses them to the Home Secretary, enabling the Central Government to exercise its powers under section 14 to review and revoke the detention order.
(B) Key legal principles include the right to make a representation to both State and Central Governments, the obligation of authorities receiving such representations to forward them to the Central Government, and the requirement that failure to do so deprives the detenu of a meaningful opportunity to be heard, rendering the detention order unsustainable.
Facts of the case:
The District Magistrate of Bulandshahar ordered the detention of an individual under the National Security Act, 1980, and informed him of the right to represent to the State and Central Governments. The detenu submitted a representation addressed to the Home Secretary through jail authorities. The State Government rejected the representation, and records showed it was not forwarded to the Central Government. This led to a challenge under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the representation was addressed only to the Home Secretary without specifying the State or Central Government, but the jail authorities were legally bound to send one copy to the Central Government. The jail forwarded the representation only to the State Government, denying the detenu an effective representation and access to the Central Governments power to revoke detention under section 14.
Issues:
Whether the jail authorities were obligated to forward a representation addressed to the Home Secretary to the Central Government, and whether failure to do so invalidated the detention order.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that when a detenu provides sufficient copies of a representation to jail authorities, those authorities are legally bound to forward one copy to the Central Government. The failure to do so denies the detenu a statutory right and an effective opportunity to be heard, warranting quashing of the detention order.
Result:
The writ petition is allowed, and the detention order dated July 23, 1991, is quashed.
(A) The National Security Act, 1980, sections three and eight, read with article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, govern the procedure and safeguards for preventive detention. The authority must inform the detenu of the right to represent to both the State and Central Governments, and the designated officers are obligated to forward representations to the appropriate authorities to ensure a valid opportunity to be heard. The State is responsible for ensuring that representations reach the Central Government when the detenu addresses them to the Home Secretary, enabling the Central Government to exercise its powers under section 14 to review and revoke the detention order.
(B) Key legal principles include the right to make a representation to both State and Central Governments, the obligation of authorities receiving such representations to forward them to the Central Government, and the requirement that failure to do so deprives the detenu of a meaningful opportunity to be heard, rendering the detention order unsustainable.
Facts of the case:
The District Magistrate of Bulandshahar ordered the detention of an individual under the National Security Act, 1980, and informed him of the right to represent to the State and Central Governments. The detenu submitted a representation addressed to the Home Secretary through jail authorities. The State Government rejected the representation, and records showed it was not forwarded to the Central Government. This led to a challenge under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the representation was addressed only to the Home Secretary without specifying the State or Central Government, but the jail authorities were legally bound to send one copy to the Central Government. The jail forwarded the representation only to the State Government, denying the detenu an effective representation and access to the Central Governments power to revoke detention under section 14.
Issues:
Whether the jail authorities were obligated to forward a representation addressed to the Home Secretary to the Central Government, and whether failure to do so invalidated the detention order.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that when a detenu provides sufficient copies of a representation to jail authorities, those authorities are legally bound to forward one copy to the Central Government. The failure to do so denies the detenu a statutory right and an effective opportunity to be heard, warranting quashing of the detention order.
Result:
The writ petition is allowed, and the detention order dated July 23, 1991, is quashed.
A.S.PUNDIR, ASHOK BHAN, C.K.RAINA PARKHI, K.T.S.Tulsi, N.M.GHATATE, R.K.JAIN, U.U.Lalit
JUDGMENT
The District Magistrate Bulandshahar Uttar Pradesh, by an order dated July 23, 1991, directed that Jagdish s/o Kanchan Singh (the detenu) resident of village Dhamera Kirat District Bulandshahar be detained under the National Security Act, 1980 (the Act). The order was served upon the detenu while in custody in connection with two criminal cases registered against him. The grounds of detention served upon the detenu also stated as under :
"You are hereby informed in accordance with S. 8 of the above Act that you have the right to file a representation to the State Government against the order under which you have been detained. If you want to send any such representation then that should be submitted through the Superintendent of Prisons, Bulandshahar while addressing it to the Home Secretary to the State Government...........You are also informed that if you want to submit any Representation then you may do so before the Central Government against such order under which you have been detained. And if you submit to any such representation then you may submit the representation through the Superintendent of Prisons Bulandshahar while addressing to the Home Ministry (Inter Security Department) Government of India, New Delhi."
2. The detenu submitted the representation against his detention through the jail authorities on August 3, 1991. The original records produced by the State Government show that the representation was addressed to "The Home Secretary" without indicating whether to the State Government or the Central Government.
3. The representation was rejected by the State Government on August 9, 1991. This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed through the brother of the detenu challenging the order of detention. It is averred in the petition that the detenu submitted nine copies of the representation to the jail authorities.
4. The District Magistrate Bulandshahar, in his counter, states as under :
"That para 4 of the writ petition is admitted to the extent that the cc pies of the representation were received through the office of the Superintendent District Jail Bulandshahar. Out of these one copy was retained in my office six copies were forwarded to the Government of U.P. and one copy was communicated to the Advisory Board under the National Security Act. The deponent has specifically inquired from the office of the Superintendent District Jail Bulandshahar and upon information received from the said office, it is respectfully submitted that the detenu has not made any representation to the Central Government."
Mr. R. K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Udai Lalit has contended that even though, no representation was sent by the detenu to the Central Government, the State Government was under an obligation to send a copy of the representation received by it to the Central Government. The argument is based on the interpretation of S. 3(5) read with S. 14 of the Act. Since the Central Government has the power under S. 14 of the Act to revoke the detention at any time, it is contended that the State Government is bound to send all relevant material received by it, from time to time, to the Central Government. It is not necessary for us to go into the question raised by the learned counsel. We are inclined to allow this petition on the facts of this case.
5. The District Magistrate along with the grounds of detention specifically informed the detenu that he has a right to make representation to the State Government and also to the Central Government. The representation sent by the detenu was neither addressed to the State Government nor to the Central Government. He only mentioned "Home Secretary" as the addressee without further indicating whether he meant Home Secretary to the State Government or the Central Government. It is not disputed that the detenu gave nine copies of the representation to the Superintendent Jail for onward submission to the authorities. We are of the view that the Superintendent Jail, in the circumstances of this case, was under an obligation to send one copy of the representation to the Central Government. The Superintendent Jail sent the representation only to the State Government and not to the Central Government. When the detenu gave sufficient number of copies of his representation and left it to the jail authorities to forward the same to the authorities as specified in the grounds of detention, the Superintendent Jail was legally bound to send one copy to the Central Government. We are, therefore, of the view that the detenu was denied his right to make an effective representation and on that short ground his detention is liable to be quashed.
6. We allow the writ petition and quash the detention order dated July 23, 1991.
Petition allowed.
For Citation: AIR 1993 SC 473