Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammad Rais vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 October, 2020
Author: S.C.Sharma
Bench: S.C.Sharma
Writ Petition No.14215/2020, 14216/2020
14218/2020 and 14256/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
-1-
Writ Petition No.14215/2020
(Mohammad Yunus Vs. State of M. P. and Another)
Writ Petition No.14216/2020
(Mohammad Rais Vs. State of M. P. and Another)
Writ Petition No.14218/2020
(Mohammad Rafiq Vs. State of M. P. and Another)
Writ Petition No.14256/2020
(Azad Shah Vs. State of M. P. and Another)
Indore, dated 06/10/2020
Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the petitioner(s).
Shri Vivek Dalal, learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in
the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a
common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ
Petition No.14215/2020 are narrated hereunder.
02- The petitioner before this Court has filed present petition as a
Habeas Corpus writ petition being aggrieved by order dated 04/09/2020
by which his brother Hakim aged about 19 years has been detained
under the National Security Act, 1980.
03- The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner's brother, who is
only 19 years of age, was detained by the police on 23-24/08/2020
(midnight) and a case was registered against him for an offence under
Section 25 of the Arms Act. He has also been granted bail on 11/09/2020
in the aforesaid matter.
04- The petitioner has further stated that his further while his brother
Writ Petition No.14215/2020, 14216/2020
14218/2020 and 14256/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
-2-
was in jail in respect of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, was
informed on 04/09/2020 that District Magistrate in exercise of powers
conferred under Section 3 of National Security Act, 1980 has passed an
order of detention on 04/09/2020. The contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the order of detention has been passed in a
vindictive manner. The brother of the petitioner is not a hardcore criminal.
By registering only one case under Section 25 of the Arms Act that too
when he was in jail, the order of detention has been passed.
05- Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued before this
Court that the order of detention was required to be approved within
twelve days and the same has not been done. It has been stated that
only because he has participated in the possession of Muharram, the
impugned order has been passed.
06- A detailed reply has been filed on behalf of the State Government
and the State Government in reply has stated that the petitioner's brother
was arrested for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act on
intervening night of 23-24/08/2020 and a First Information Report was
registered at Crime No.0420/2020. The solitary case referred against the
brother of the petitioner as case number No.0420/2020 under Section 25
of the Arms Act.
07- The reply further reveals that an entry was made in the
Rojnamcha, while brother of the petitioner was in jail on 30/08/2020, that
brother of the petitioner and other co-accused persons on the eve of
Writ Petition No.14215/2020, 14216/2020
14218/2020 and 14256/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
-3-
Muharram last year have taken out a procession carrying swords and
therefore, to maintain public order in the city and from preventing the
brother of the petitioner in acting any manner prejudicial to the security of
the State, the Superintendent of Police has submitted a report on
03/09/2020 to the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate has
passed an order on 04/09/2020 detaining the brother of the petitioner
under the National Security Act, 1980.
08- It has been stated that the grounds of detention was served to the
petitioner's brother along with supported documents on 05/09/2020 when
he was in jail and the State Government has accorded approval to the
detention order on 14/09/2020. The approval granted by the State
Government was served to the petitioner's brother through letter dated
17/09/2020 and the matter is still pending before the Advisory Board.
09- This Court has carefully gone through the writ petition as well as
reply filed by the respondents. Section 3 of the National Security Act,
1980 reads as under:-
"3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.- (1)
The Central Government or the State Government may, -
(a) if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to
preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of
India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India,
or
(b) if satisfied with respect to any foreigner that with a view to
regulating his continued presence in India or with a view to making
arrangements for his expulsion from India, it is necessary so to do,
make an order directing that such person be detained.
(2) The Central Government or the State Government may, if
satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him
from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or
from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public
Writ Petition No.14215/2020, 14216/2020
14218/2020 and 14256/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
-4-
order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
supplies and services essential to the community it is necessary so to
do, make an order directing that such person be detained.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, "acting in
any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services
essential to the community" does not include "acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to
the community" as defined in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of
section 3 of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of
Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (7 of 1980), and
accordingly, no order of detention shall be made under this Act on any
ground on which an order of detention may be made under that Act.
(3) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to
prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District
Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State Government is
satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, by order in writing, direct,
that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District
Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided
in sub-section (2), exercise the powers conferred by the said sub-
section:
Provided that the period specified in an order made by the State
Government under this sub-section shall not, in the first instance,
exceed three months, but the State Government may, if satisfied as
aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend
such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three
months at any one time.
(4) When any order is made under this section by an officer
mentioned in sub-section (3), he shall forthwith report the fact to the
State Government to which he is subordinate together with the grounds
on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his
opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain
in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof unless, in
the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government:
Provided that where under section 8 the grounds of detention
are communicated by the officer making the order after five days but
not later than ten days from the date of detention, this sub-section shall
apply subject to the modification that, for the words "twelve days", the
words "fifteen days" shall be substituted.
(5) When any order is made or approved by the State
Government under this section, the State Government shall, within
seven days, report the fact to the Central Government together with the
grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars
as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a bearing on the
necessity for the order."
10- This Court really fails to understand that based upon a Rojnamcha
Entry dated 30/08/2020 in which it was stated by the police that the
Writ Petition No.14215/2020, 14216/2020
14218/2020 and 14256/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
-5-
brother of the petitioner has participated in the Muharram procession last
year carrying swords, how he can be a threat to law and order problem.
Participation in Muharram last year, even if it is presumed to be correct,
has got no relevance with the procession which was to take place this
year. There is no entry in the last year Rojnamcha also to that effect.
11- Not only this, at the time the order of detention was passed, the
brother of the petitioner was in jail on account of a case under Section 25
of the the Arms Act. The report of Superintendent of Police dated
03/09/2020 reads as under:-
&% % "dk;kZy; iqfyl v/kh{kd ftyk jktx<+ ¼C;kojk½ e- iz- % % &
dz@iqv@jkt@jhMj@,u,l,@04@20 fnukad 03@09@2020
izfr]
ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh
ftyk jktx<+ ¼e-iz-½
fo"k;%&vukosnd gdhe firk vCnqy [kkfyn mez 19 lky fu- othj gqlSu
eksgYyk Fkkuk lkjaxiqj ftyk jktx<+ dks jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e
1980 dh /kkjk 3¼2½ ds varxZr fujks/k esa fy;s tkus gsrq izfrosnuA
egksn;]
fuosnu dj ys[k gS fd dLck lkjaxiqj dkuwu O;oLFkk dh n`f"V ls
vR;Ur laosnu'khy dLck gS ;gka NksVh NksVh ?kVukvksa dks lkEiznkf;d
Lo:i nsus dh izo`fRr ;gka ds vketu esa O;kIr gS bl dkj.k dbZ ckj
lkEiznkf;d naxs gq;s gSA ;gka ij lkEiznkf;d naxs gksus dk ,d izeq[k dkj.k
voS/k gfFk;kj dh [kjhnh fcdzh o izn'kZu gks jgk gSA ,slh ?kVuk;sa dLCkk ds
vU; leqnk; ds yksxks dh /kkfeZd Hkkouk dks vkgr djrh gSA vukosnd
gdhe firk vCnqy [kkfyn mez 19 lky fu- othj gqlSu eksgYyk Fkkuk
lkjaxiqj es voS/k ryokjks dks [kjhn dj o cukdj csprk gS] ftlls 'kkfrj
yksx /kkfeZd tqyql es mu ryokjksa dk izn'kZu djrs gS ftlls dLCkk
lkjaxiqj dh 'kkafr O;oLFkk [kjkc gksrh gS o naxs gksus dh laHkkouk jgrh gSA
blds fd;s x;s vijk/k dk foLr`r C;kSjk fuEukuqlkj gS %
vi0dz0a 420@20 /kkjk 25 vkElZ ,DV
fnukad 24%08%20 dks eq[kfcj lwpuk ij mfu vadqj pkScs }kjk vkjksih
gdhe firk vCnqy [kkfyn mez 19 lky fu- othj gqlSu eksgYyk dks mlds
lkFkh vkjksih lyeku firk eks- jQhd mez 20 lky fu- othj gqlSu
Writ Petition No.14215/2020, 14216/2020
14218/2020 and 14256/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
-6-
eksgYyk dks voS/k 04 ryokj o ryokj cukus ds 70 ryokj ds eqB tIr
dj vkjksfi;ks dks fxj- dj Fkkuk lkjaxiqj es vidza-420@20 /kkjk 25 vkElZ
,DV dk dk;e dj foospuk es fy;k x;kA
udy jkst0lkUgk0 32@02@09@2020
cts lqpuk eq> Fkkuk izHkkjh fujh{kd gkde flag iaokj ls gS fd
dLck lkjaxiqj dkuwu O;oLFkk dh n`f"V ls vR;Ur laosnu'khy dLck gS
;gka NksVh NksVh ?kVukvksa dks lkEiznkf;d Lo:i nsus dh izo`fRr ;gka ds
vketu esa O;kIr gS blk dkj.k dbZ ckj lkEiznkf;d naxs gq;s gSA ;gka ij
lkEiznkf;d naxs gksus dk ,d izeq[k dkj.k voS/k gfFk;kj [kjnh fodzh o
izn'kZu gks jgk gSA ,slh ?kVuk;sa dLck ds vU; leqnk; ds yksxks dh /kkfeZd
Hkkouk dks vkgr djrh gSA vukosnd gdhe firk vCnqy [kkfyn mez 19
lky fu- othj gqlSu eksgYyk Fkkuk lkjaxiqj dLCkk lkjaxiqj esa voS/k
ryokjks dks [kjhn dj o cukdj csprk gS] ftlls 'kkfrj yksx /kkfeZd
tqyql es mu ryokjks dk izn'kZu djrs gS ftlls dLck lkjaxiqj dh 'kkafr
O;oLFkk [kjkc gksrh gS o naxs gksus dh laHkkouk jgrh gSA vukosnd dks
jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e ds varxZr izfrcaf/kr djuk vfr vko';d gks x;k
gS ;fn vukosnd dks jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e ds varxZr izfrcaf/kr ugh
fd;k x;k rks {ks= esa v'kkafr Qsyk;sxkA vr% vukosnd ds fo:) jk"Vªh;
lqj{kk vf/kfu;e 1980 dh /kkjk 3¼2½ ds vUrxZr fujks/k esa fy;s tkus ds
varxZr dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk iw.kZr% ;qfDr ;qDr ,oa vkSfpR; iw.kZ gksus ls
vukosnd ds fo:) ,u,l, dz-02@20 rS;kj fd;k tkdj vknsf'kr fd;s
tkus gsrq ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh egksn; dks izsf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA fjiksVZ ckcr~
djus rS;kj ftyk ,u,l, dz- 02@20 vukosnd gdhe firk vCnqy
[kkfyn mez 19 lky fu- othj gqlSu eksgYyk ds fo:)
vukosnd gdhe firk vCnqy [kkfyn mez 19 lky fu- othj gqlSu
eksgYyk Fkkuk lkjaxiqj dLck lkjaiqj es voS/k ryokjks dks [kjhn dj o
cukdj csprk gS] ftlls 'kkfrj yksx /kkfeZd tqyql es mu ryokjks dk
izn'kZu djrs gS ftlls dLCkk lkjaxiqj dh 'kkafr O;oLFkk [kjkc gksrh gS o
naxs gksus dh laHkkouk jgrh gSA dLck lkjaxiqj ,oa vklikl ds {ks=ksa esa
yM+kbZ >xMk] ,oa ruko dk ekgkSy] cuk jgrk gSA bldk lekt es Lora=
jguk ?kkrd gSA ftlls dLCkk lkjaxiqj dh yksd O;oLFkk ij foijhr izHkko
iM+ jgk gSA bldk bruk vkrad gS fd vketu blds Hk; ds dkj.k Fkkus
esa fjiksVZ djus o lwpuk nsus rd ugh vk ikrs gSA xokg dks Hkh bruk Mjk
nsrk gS fd os blds izdj.kksa esa ;k rks xokgh ugh nsus tkrs gS ;k Mj ds
ekjs blds fo:) xokgh ugh nsrs gSA mDr xfrfof/k;ksa dks ns[krs gq,
vukosnd dks jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e ds varxZr izfrcaf/kr djuk vfr
vko';d gks x;k gS ;fn vukosnd dks jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e ds varxZr
izfrcaf/kr ugh fd;k x;k rks {ks= esa v'kkafr Qsyk;sxkA vr% vukosnd ds
fo:) jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e 1980 dh /kkjk 3¼2½ ds varxZr fujks/k esa
fy;s tkus gsrq izfrosnu lknj izsf"kr gSA
layXu %&
Writ Petition No.14215/2020, 14216/2020
14218/2020 and 14256/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
-7-
5- lwph vkijkf/kd fjdkMZ & 01 fdrk
6- lwph vkijkf/kd nLrkost & 01 fdrk
7- izfrosnu esa mYysf[kr dh iz-lw-izfrosnu@udy
tjk;e dh udy & 01 fdrk
8- lwph xokgku & 01 fdrk
iqfyl v/kh{kd
ftyk jktx<+"
The aforesaid report contains the entire material on the basis of
which National Security Act, 1980 has been slapped upon the brother of
the petitioner.
12- The undisputed facts also reveal that the order detaining the
brother of the petitioner under the National Security Act, 1980 was passed
on 04/09/2020 and the order dated 04/09/2020 reads as under:-
"U;k;ky; ftyk eftLVªV
s ] ftyk jktx<+ ¼C;kojk½ e- iz-
dzekad 109@izokpd@2020 jktx<+] fnukad 04 flrEcj 2020
vkns'k
pwWfd esjk] uhjt dqekj flag ftyk eftLVsªV] ftyk jktx<+ ¼C;kojk½
e-iz- dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd gdhe firk vCnqy [kkfyn mez 19
o"kZ] fuoklh othj gqlSu eksgYyk lkjaxiqj Fkkuk lkjaxiqj] rglhy lkjaxiqj
ftyk jktx<+ dks yksd O;oLFkk ds vuqj{k.k ds izfrdqy fdlh Hkh jhfr esa
dk;Z djus ls jksdus ds vfHkizk; ls mldks jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980
dh /kkjk&3 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds v/khu fu:) djuk vko';d gSA
vr,oa mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ lgifBr /kkjk
¼3½ rFkk e-iz- 'kklu] x`g foHkkx ¼lh&vuqHkkx½ ds vkns'k dzekad&,Q
31&05&1998&nks&lh&1 Hkksiky fnukad 01 tqykbZ] 2020 }kjk iznRr
'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx esa ykrs gq, eSa] uhjt dqekj flag] ftyk eftLVªsV] ftyk
jktx<+ ¼C;kojk½ e- iz- ,rn~ }kjk vkns'k nsrk gwWa fd gdhe firk vCnqy
[kkfyn mez 19 o"kZ] fuoklh othj gqlSu eksgYyk lkjaxiqj Fkkuk lkjaxiqj
rglhy lkjaxiqj ftyk jktx<+ dks fu:) fd;k tk, rFkk dsUnzh; tsy]
Hkksiky esa j[kk tk,A
¼uhjt dqekj flag½
ftyk eftLVsªV"
The order reflects that a youth of only 19 years of age with one
Writ Petition No.14215/2020, 14216/2020
14218/2020 and 14256/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
-8-
criminal case that too under Section 25 of the Arms Act has become a
threat to the society (law and order).
13- The order approving the detention was passed on 17/09/2020 and
the same reads as under:-
"GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH
HOME (C-SECTION) DEPARTMENT
ORDER
Bhopal, Dated 17/09/2020 F. NO.31-313/2020/II/C-1 : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 ( No. 65 of 1980 ) the State Government has approved the detention order dated 04/09/2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Rajgarh against Hakim S/o Abdul Khalid R/o Distt. Rajgarh under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the said Act on dated 14/09/2020.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, Sd/-
(Shri Das) Under Secretary to Government of Madhya Pradesh Home Department F.NO.31-313/2020/II/C-1 Bhopal, Dated 17/09/2020 Copy forwarded to :-
1- District Magistrate, Rajgarh for information and necessary action.
2- The Superintendent, Central Jail Indore.
3- Under Secretary to Ministry of Home Affairs, NDCC II Building
Jai Singh Road, New Delhi
Sd/- 17.09.2020
(Shri Das)
Under Secretary to Government of
Madhya Pradesh Home Department"
The order dated 17/09/2020 reflects that the approval has been granted on 14/09/2020. In case the approval was granted on 14/09/2020 why the order was not issued on the same day. It appears that the respondents have antedated the order of approval.
14- This Court while dealing with a similar writ petition i.e. Writ Petition Writ Petition No.14215/2020, 14216/2020 14218/2020 and 14256/2020 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE -9- No.13234/2020 (Tanveer Patel Vs. State of M. P. and Others) on 15/09/2020 has passed the following order:-
"14- ............. This Court really fails to understand that if the approval was granted on 08/09/2020, why the approval order has been brought to the notice of this Bench after hearing was concluded that too the order is dated 15/09/2020. Resultantly, as the order is dated 15/09/2020 and the approval was certainly not granted by issuing any order within "twelve days" as required under under Section 3(4) of the Act of 1980.
15- Preventive detention means detention of a person without trial. The order of preventive detention is issued by an executive authority in its subjective satisfaction. Thus, preventive detention involves a serious encroachment on the right of personal liberty. The law of preventive detention is strictly construed, and compliance with procedural safeguards is insisted upon [Union of India Vs. Paul Manickam reported in (2003) 8 SCC 342].
16- The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has gone to point out that personal liberty is one of the most cherished values of mankind. As the power of preventive detention encroaches upon personal liberty, it is the solemn duty of the Courts to ensure that this power is exercised strictly in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution and the law, and the concerned person is not deprived of his personal liberty otherwise than in accordance with law.
17- On account of procedure irregularities by the authorities, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Icchu Devi Vs. Union of India reported in (1980) 4 SCC 531 has set aside the detention under the COFEPOSA. In the case of Icchu Devi, there was an undue delay in supplying to her the copy of document and the material relied upon in the grounds of detention and there was unreasonableness, delay in considering the representation to the detenu.
18- In the considered opinion of this Court, keeping in view the fact that cases of 2005 and 2007 have been taken into account including the fact that there has been a violation of prohibitory order issued under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the action of the respondent / District Magistrate suffers from vice of non- application of mind and deserves to be quashed.
19- In the present case, the order of detention has been passed only because the petitioner has participated in a procession on the eve Muharram and that itself is certainly not a ground for detaining him by passing an order under the National Security Act, 1980. 20- The order passed by the District Magistrate refers to news published in Nai Duniya, Dainik Bhaskar, Peoples Samachar. The District Magistrate has formed his opinion on the basis of media trial. It is unfortunate that media trial has become very common these days and now the adjudicating authorities are delivering their judgments based upon media trials. Resultantly, there appears to be total non-
Writ Petition No.14215/2020, 14216/2020 14218/2020 and 14256/2020 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
- 10 -
application of mind on the part of the District Magistrate in passing the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order is here by quashed. The writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith."
In light of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the order of detention has not been confirmed within the statutory period i.e. within twelve days and therefore, the order of detention is no longer in force.
15- By taking in to account the sole case in which the petitioner was already in jail, the order of detention has been passed. The action of the respondent District Magistrate suffers from vice of non-application of mind and deserves to be quashed.
16- The another shocking aspect of the case is that a Rojnamcha Entry of 02/09/2020 has also been made to be the basis for passing the order of detention under the National Security Act, 1980. The Rojnamcha Entry reflects that the petitioner's brother is involved in manufacturing swords and in those circumstances it has become necessary to pass an order of detention.
17- In reply the respondents in reply to paragraphs 5.2 to 5.5 has stated as under:-
"In reply to the contents of para 5.2 to 5.5 it is submitted that on 24.08.2020 on receiving a secret information the present petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons were arrested for the offence punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act, the prosecution has seized four swords along with 79 sword handles from the possession of accused persons and they were arrested for the offences punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Superintendent of Police has submitted report before the Respondent No.2. The aforesaid documents reflects particularly the Rojnamcha Entry dated 30.08.2020 that the present petitioner and other co-accused persons last year on Writ Petition No.14215/2020, 14216/2020 14218/2020 and 14256/2020 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
- 11 -
the festival of Moharram a procession was taken out and people who have participated in the procession were carrying swords in their hands which caused a law and order situation in the city and caused fear in the public. Looking towards the quantity recovered from the petitioner and, therefore, to maintain the public order in the city and from preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, the Superintendent of Police submitted its report dated 03.09.2020 before District Magistrate. Copy of the report of S.P., alongwith documents is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R/1."
In the aforesaid paragraph, it has been stated that last year the brother of the petitioner and other persons during Muharram took out a procession with swords. In case, if the brother of the petitioner and other persons took out a procession with swords last year, why the State Government has not filed the last year's Rojnamcha Entry. It appears that only in order to detain the petitioner's brother under the National Security Act, 1980 such an incorrect statement is being made before this Court and therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
18- In other identical cases also, the order of detention has not been approved within twelve days and similar statement has been made that the persons detained took out procession last year on Muharram carrying swords. The other identical petitions are also allowed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- each.
19- The brother of the petitioner and other persons who have been detained on account of the order passed under National Security Act, 1980 be released forthwith. The impugned order of detention in the present case passed under the National Security Act, 1980 and other Writ Petition No.14215/2020, 14216/2020 14218/2020 and 14256/2020 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
- 12 -
connected matters are set aside with a cost of Rs.10,000/- each. 20- The order under the National Security Act, 1980 has to be passed based upon cogent material, based upon the cases pending against the person keeping in mind that he has become a threat to the society as well as other factors as contained under the National Security Act, 1980. Passing of an order under the National Security Act, 1980 on singular case / frivolous grounds are diluting the effect of orders passed under the National Security Act, 1980. An order can be passed certainly against a person from preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of state or from acting any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, etc. and therefore, the exercise of passing an order of preventing detention in a casual manner frustrates the object of the National Security Act, 1980 itself. The preventive detention involves the serious encroachment on the right of personal liberty and therefore, it is the solemn duty of the Courts to ensure that this power is exercised strictly in accordance with the requirement of the Constitution and the law and the concern person is not deprived of his personal liberty otherwise in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, all the writ petition stand allowed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. C. SHARMA) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
Digitally signed by
Tej Prakash Vyas
Date: 2020.10.07
13:56:35 +05'30'