AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.N. Singh, J.—We are confronted in this we with a queer submission on behalf of the State that it is not required constitutionally to justify by return to the writ of habeas corpus the detention when asked to show cause for the detention. State has taken stand in this case that the return even if not complete may be supplemented by unworn statements from the record. We find it very difficult to Accept this proposition of law, Records pan be relied on in respect of the statements made in the return and not to make out of a now case It has been held by the Apex Court in a number of cases that it is not the duty of the Court to wade through the records to find out materials to the prejudice of the detenu.
We begin our judgment in this case with this prefatory remark, because, what is agitated in this case is violation of constitutional mandate of Article 22(5). Grievance was made in the writ petition itself in para 18(A) that on 28.1.84, representation by the detenu was made in this case to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, Imphal through the Superintendent of prison It was also-mated that a similar representation dated 23.2.1984 was also made by the detenu to the Home Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi, through the Superintendent of prisons, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal. In this case, detention order was passed by the Respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Imphal, Manipur, on 20.1.1984, u/s 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980. This order was challenged in this Court by a petition of writ of habeas corpus filed on 21.2.1984. The Suite of Manipur the District Magistrate (Detaining Authority) and the Union of India were imp leaded in the petition, respectively as Respondents 1, 2 and 3 on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2, return in this case was filed as late as on 18.5.1984. Curiously enough, in the said return the statements made at paragraph 18(A) of the petition were not touched at not to say of their being controverter. Learned Senior Government Advocate submits, when the judgment is being dictated, that in the original petition paragraph 18(A) was not there. However, our attention is drawn to the order passed in this case on 28.2.84 of which date rule in this case was issued, and on the same day this Court allowed before the rule was issued the partition to be amended and rule, there fore, was on the amended petition, which was served on the Respondent, We therefore, (sic) substance in the grievance made by the learned Senior Government Advocate that there was no occasion or opportunity for the Respondents to controvert the statement made in para 18A. We have no manner of doubt that when a specific statement in para 18A was made that a representation was submitted on a particular day to a particular person it was the bounden duty of the Respondents either to accept or deny the statement. Because, the statement was very vital to constitutional right of the detenu agitated in the petition. By mere silence the Respondents cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility or can be said to discharge their duties of satisfactorily explaining to the Court, the cause of detention and for that matter justifying the detention. Records are placed before us, but we refused to look into the same for reasons alluded. We are bound band and foot by the highest judicial mandate to do so. On this ground itself that no cause is satisfactorily shown as respects the detention made in this case by satisfying the Court that the constitutional mandate of Article 22(5) has been duly Complied with, the continued detention of the detenu must be hold to be unconstitutional and void.
However, other points are there which deserve our consideration and the deletion order being assailed thereon also as equally and substantially defective, the same must be weighed. First, the grievance about put non-consideration of the representation made to the third Respondent, the Union of India. On that the affidavit of the said Respondent speaks at para 6 that It had not received any representation and that the petition was checked with the State Government, who confirmed that no representation was presented by the detenu to the Jail Authority. On this matter the statement of the State of Manipur, the first Respondent, we have already noted which manifests a culpable callousness. While the third Respondent made a case in specific term of non receipt of the representation, the first Respondent chose to be silent on the point: we must consider the silence to be eloquent in the facts and circumstances of the case, We have reasons to assume why not a single word was spoken about it and no reply given to para 18A of the writ petition. At what point of time or space the representation alleged to have been submitted lost its track was, perhaps, found to be difficult to be ascertained. Why, other wise, nothing could be said about It? Again, what prevented the first or the second Respondent to have an affidavit filed by the Jail Authority to deny that the said representation was ever submitted by the detenu to the Jail Authority, Indeed, in the celebrated, decision of their Lordships in Rattan Sing v. State of Punjab (AIR 1982 SC 1), the consequence of such an action and the factual position that prevails in the context of grievance made on this Court is picturesquely expressed by Chandrachud, C.J. in the following words:
Some one tripped somewhere and the representation addressed to the Central Government was apparently never forwarded to it, with the inevitable result that the detenu has been unaccountable deprived of a valuable right to defend and asser this fundamental right to personal liberty.
On this ground alone, their Lordships in that case held the continued detention to be void.
There is another grievance to which also we may address ourselves, Petitioner''s counsel submitted that the report u/s 3(5) of the Act, made by the State Government to the central Government has not considered with reasonable expedition and relying on the decision rendered by the Court in Hitendra Nath Goswami, (Civil Rule (HC) No. 17 of 1983) dated 16.1.1984 1 on the score of breach of the procedural safeguard on that account the detention is challenged at void. In Hitendra Nath Goswami (supra), five Judges of this Court were called upon to answer the following question:
Whether on the report from the State Government u/s 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980, the Central Government has the discretion coupled with duty to consider the question of revocation of detention order expeditiously, irrespective of the fact that that there is no representation/petition from the detenu to the Central Government for the purpose.
Majority view in that case answered the question in the affirmative, it way held that the discretionary power of the Central Government u/s 14(l) of the Act in the context of Section 3(5) of the Act is coupled with duty to consider the report received from the State Government with reasonable expedition, notwithstanding that no representation petition has been made by the detenu to the Central Government and that what is reasonable expedition depends on the circumstances of the particular case, and in case of breach of such procedural safeguard, the detention order is liable to be set aside and the detenu set at liberty. The law laid down by this Court, therefore, mandates judicial scrutiny of the consideration of the report by the Central Government. We may now apply ourselves to this task. We refer accordingly to the relevant statement made in paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the third Respondent, Union of India. This is all what is stated therein:
That with regard to statement made in ground (h) in para 17 of the petition, the deponent begs to state that the same is not correct. That the report as envisaged u/s 3(5) of NSA, 1980, about the detention of Shri Khaidem Shototo Singh @3 Teto was made by the State Government to the Central Govt. vide their letter dated the 4th February, 1984. That the said report was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on the 10th February, 1984. That this report was immediately attended to and scrutinized.
We do not find any material stated in the above statement to satisfy ourselves that the report was received, considered and disposed of with reasonable expedition. The bald one sentence statement assorts merely that the same was "immediately attended to and scrutinized." How the scrutiny took place and on which date the report was disposed of are not stated. This attempt to foreclose judicial scrutiny cannot be accented in view of what has been laid down in Hitendra Nath Goswami''s Case. We have, therefore, no doubt that on this ground as well, the detenu is liable to be freed inasmuch as his continued detention is illegal and invalid.
For foregoing reason we hold the continued detention pursuant to the impugned Order passed on 20.1.1984 to be unconstitutional and void, Accordingly, we allow the petition and make the rule absolute. The detenu Shri Khaidem Shoteto Singh @ Punshiba shall be set At liberty forthwith.