Hari Prasad Mishra vs District Magistrate, Indore

The Order of the Court was delivered by : S.K. Seth, J. - Petitioner is challenging the detention order of his son Rajendra @ Bantu. The detention order was passed on 22.2.2011 under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980. In exercise of powers conferred by S. 3(2) of the Act, the District Magistrate Indore on 22.02.2011 ordered detention of petitioner''s son Rajendra @ Bantu to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Said order along with grounds of detention was duly served upon the detenue. The detention order was approved by the Advisory Board; therefore, State Government passed an order on 25.4.2011 directing detention of Rajendra @ Bantu for a period of twelve months ending on 21.2.2012. Both these orders are under challenge. The only ground urged in the petition and canvassed before us is that out of 19 criminal cases registered against the detenue, he has been acquitted in sixteen cases, therefore, there is no nexus between the ground and the detention order and as such orders impugned are unsustainable in law and deserve to be quashed.

A reply has been filed to oppose the petition. Record was also produced. After hearing rival submissions and going through record, we do not find any merit in the submission of counsel for the petitioner.

National Security Act, 1980 is a law enacted by the Parliament. Preamble of the Act shows that it is act to provide for preventive detention in certain cases. The object of preventive detention is not to punish a person for having done something but to intercept him before he does it. It has, therefore, to be understood in contradistinction to ''punitive detention'' which follows a trial for an offence culminating in conviction.

The law of preventive detention has stood the test on the anvil of fundamental rights since A.K. Gopalan Vs. The State of Madras, which was the first case that came up for consideration of the Supreme Court in the history of Independent India. Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Article 21 presents an example of the fusion of procedural and substantive rights in the same provision. It is now well settled that the order of detention made under the Act is essentially a precautionary measure and is based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of a person based on his past conduct judged in the light of surrounding circumstances. It may be easier to draw such inference where there is series of acts evincing the course of conduct to form subjective satisfaction that the person concerned, if not detained, would be likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining Authority based on relevant material is sine qua non to the exercise of power. In the instant case, we are satisfied that the detaining authority on consideration of material made available to it, reached the conclusion to issue the detention order. The facts of unlawful activities of the detenue contained in the grounds were clearly relevant for the purpose of forming an opinion that the activities of the detenue were prejudicial to public tranquility and even tempo of life in society. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the detenue has taken a life of crime and has become a menace to society justifying the detention order. It is clear that acquittal from criminal cases had no dampening effect on his criminal proclivity. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned orders. There is no merit and substance in the writ petition. It is therefore, dismissed.