Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: NSA in Smt. Kanchan Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2023Matching Fragments
9. It is a well settled proposition of law that a conviction in criminal case is not a mandatory or only factor for passing of the order of detention. It is the subjective satisfaction of the authorities which is required to be taken note of, therefore, the argument advanced is of no help to the petitioner.
10. Another ground which has been urged by the petitioner is that the action has been taken in pursuance to a tweet made by the Chief Minister of the State asking for taking stern action against the detenu even to the extent of NSA, therefore, the action is politically motivated. The Chief Minister being the head of the State is duty bound to maintain law and order situation in the entire State. If an act so committed creates a law and order situation and creates a bad impact upon the society at large, then he being the Head of the State is duty bound to issue direction for taking stringent action against the culprit. He has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs State of U.P. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150 wherein it is held that "it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint raised by him. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of an individual case". Meaning thereby, the elected representative is duty bound to direct for taking strong action in case any illegal activity is being reported or brought to his knowledge which shakes the conscience of the society and that has been done in the present case. Therefore, the ground is of no help to the petitioner. He has prayed for dismissal of writ petition.
S.No. Provision of the NSA Time-limit prescribed Action/orders Date of the under which the action is from the date of taken order/action + taken detention order Annexure No. 1 S. 3(2) - Detention order 05.07.2023 passed P-1/R-3 2 S. 3(4) Forthwith Reporting of the 06.07.2023 R/4 fact of detention 11.07.2023 to the State R/6 Govt.
3 S. 8 5 or 10 days Communication 11.07.2023
of grounds of R/6
S.No. Provision of the NSA Time-limit prescribed Action/orders Date of the
under which the action is from the date of taken order/action +
taken detention order Annexure No.
detention to the
detenu
4 S. 3(4) 12 days Approval of the 12.07.2023 R/9
detention order
by the State
Govt.
5 S. 3(5) 7 days Reporting of the 12.07.2023
fact by the State R/10
Govt. to Central
Govt.
6 S. 10 3 weeks Reference to the 12.07.2023
Advisory Board R/11
17. Further, in the criminal cases which were registered against the detenu, the same situation arose and nobody from the society dared to give a statement against him. The Superintendent of Police District Sidhi after going through the entire material has recorded his subjective satisfaction and thereafter forwarded the matter to the competent authority for initiation of proceedings under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The only requirement for initiation of the proceedings under the NSA is the subjective satisfaction of the authorities which has been done in the present case.