T. Nandakumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned GA, appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2. None appears for the respondent No. 3.
(2.) THE petitioner is the father of the detenu (Shri Rahul Marak). By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging (i) the impugned detention order dated 22 -11 -2013 issued by the detaining authority i.e. the District Magistrate, West Garo Hills, Tura in exercise of his powers conferred upon him under Section 3(1) of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, (for short MPDA), 1995, for detaining the detenu i.e. the petitioner's son, (ii) the impugned order of the Government of Meghalaya dated 29 -11 -2013 under Sub -section (3) of Section 3 of the MPDA, 1995, for approving the impugned detention order dated 22 -11 -2013 and (iii) the impugned order of the State Government dated 02 -01 -2014 for confirming the impugned detention order dated 22 -11 -2013 and continuing the detention of the detenu for a period of 3 (three) years w.e.f. 22 -11 -2013 to 21 -11 -2016. The object of law of preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive. Preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence. It is resorted when the Executive is convinced that such detention is necessary in order to prevent the persons detained from acting in a manner prejudicial to certain objects which are specified by the law. The framers of the Constitution, being aware that preventive detention involves a serious encroachment on the right to personal liberty, took care to incorporate, in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22, certain minimum safeguards for the protection of persons sought to be preventively detained. These safeguards are required to be "zealously watched and enforced by the Court". The Apex Court in Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab: : (1981) 4 SCC 481 observed that: "..... May be that the detenu is a smuggler whose tribe (and how their numbers increase) deserves no sympathy since its activities have paralyzed the Indian economy. But the loss of preventive detention affords only a modicum of safeguards to persons detained under them and if freedom and liberty are to have any meaning in our democratic set -up, it is essential that at least those safeguards are not denied to the detenus......." (Ref: - Para 4 of the SCC in Rattan Singh's case (Supra)."
(3.) IN Vijay Narayan Singh v. Bihar : (1984) 3 SCC 14, Chinnapa Redy, J. observed "our Constitution does not give a carte blanche to any organ of the State to be the sole arbiter .... Preventive detention is considered so treacherous and such an anathema to civilized thought and democratic polity that safeguards against undue exercise of the power to detain without trial have been built into the Constitution itself and incorporated as Fundamental Right.....when demanded, where there has been any excessive detention, that is, whether the limits set by the Constitution and the Legislature have been transgressed. Preventive detention is not beyond judicial scrutiny.";