On 27 June, Supreme Court, calling the preventive detention of the law student from Madhya Pradesh, ‘wholly untenable’, order for immediate release. The Court ordered for release of a 24 years law student from Madhya Pradesh, who has been held in preventive detention under National Security Act, 1980.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court ordered release of a Madhya Pradesh law student who was in a preventive detention under National Security Act, 1980.
The writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus was filed by the the father of the detenu, under Article 226 of the Constitution, assailing the order of preventive detention, which was passed by the District Magistrate, Betul on 11.07. 2024.
The power of preventive detention is exercised under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and the detention was extender for four times, but failed to meet the statutory requirments.
Brief Facts of the Case
On the representation of SHO, Police Station Ganj, District-Betul and Supritendent of Police District-Betul, the District Magistrate of Betul, has registered NSA proceedings against the son of the petitioner and passed detention order for three months on 11.07.2024.
Thereafter, on the recommendation of District Magistrate, Betul, Respondent no. 2 issued order of extention of detention period, dated 08.10.2024 and 03.01.2025.
The learned counsel of the petitioner has submitted that the order issued by the respondent is in arbitray and malafide exercise of power under section 3(2) of the act and before passing the impugned order, the detenu was not given an opportunity to be heard.By order 03.01.2025, the detention period is extended upto 12.04.2025.
It is further submitted that the action of the respondent is in the gross violation of section 3(5) and 10 of the NSA. He further submitted that the provision of section 8 of the Act has also not been complied with inasmuch as the ground of detention has not been communicated to the detenu.
The learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the petition and submits that presence of the detenu is an imminent threat and danger to public order and society at large, as he was indulged in various crimes including heinous crimes.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of previous 8 case, detenu has been acquitted in 5 cases. In one case, he was convicted, but the sentence is only imposition of fine. Remaining two cases are pending, in which he is on bail.
Issues Before the Court
Whether the detenu, who has been indulged in various crimes, including heinous crimes, should be released on bail?
Whether presence of the detenu is an imminent threat and danger to public order and society?
Judgment and Observation of the Court
The Court observed, it is clear that the detenu is implicated in multiple criminal cases involving various offences. Citing these cases and apprehensions that he may disturb public order, authorities initiated proceedings under the Act, leading to the impugned detention order dated 11.07.2024 and its subsequent extension by the District Magistrate, Betul.
The Court said,
“The present case is in respect of National Security Act and its different fallout and factual contours attract reconciliation between ‘public order’ and ‘personal liberty’.”
The Court also emphasize that, the aspect of breach of public order or threat to public peace is very subjective and it varies from case to case.
The Court also made a distinction between the concepts of “Public Order” and “Law and Order” and said,
“The true distinction between the areas of ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’ lies not in the nature or quality of the Act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. The distinction between the two concepts of ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ is a fine one but this does not mean that there can be no overlapping. Acts similar in nature nature but committed in different contexts and circumstances might cause different reactions.”
Further added’
“In one case it might affect specific individuals only and therefore touch the problem of law and order, while in another it might affect public order. The act by itself itself therefore is not determinant of its own gravity. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. That test is clearly fulfilled in the facts and circumstances circumstances of the present case.”
The Court emphasized that a reasoned order is required in this regard and after looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court directed to release the detenu from the custody, if not required in any other criminal case.
READ ORDER HERE
