DEEPAK S/O RADHESHYAM PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , the detenu, by this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashment of the order dated 8-6-2012 (Annexure-P/1) whereby he has been detained under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980. The aforesaid detention order was passed by District Magistrate, Indore on the following grounds : .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(2.) THE aforesaid order was passed on the representation made by Superintendent of Police, West district Indore on 7-6-2012. On the same day, the grounds of the order along with its particulars were supplied to detenu and he was sent to Central Jail, Rewa in execution of the detention order. An information in this regard was supplied to his father Radheshyam Purohit on the same day. Detention order was approved by the Government.

(3.) AS far as the first ground of challenge is concerned, the provisions of detention under National Security Act find roots in Arts. 21-22 of the Constitution of India. Art. 21 postulates that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except to the procedure established by law. Before a person is deprived of his life or personal liberty, the procedure established by law must be strictly followed and must not be departed from to the disadvantage of the person affected. Although Art.19 guarantees the freedom of all citizens to move freely throughout the territory of India, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the Constitution of India. In the beginning in Gopalan A. K. vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 688, the Apex Court held that the rights conferred by Art.19 are the rights of free men and a person whose personal liberty has been taken away under a valid law of punitive (Art.21) or preventive (Art.22) detention cannot complain of the infringement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Art.19. According to this view, Arts.21-22 formed a self-contained code to which the other provisions of Part III were not attracted. Though this view has, however, been overturned, bit by bit, by the Supreme Court itself, but in cases of Khudiram Das vs. State of W.B., AIR 1975 SC 550 and Haradhon Saha vs. State of W.B., AIR 1974 SC 2154, the Supreme Court held that even though Art.19 may be applicable, a law of preventive detention, which complies with the requirements of Art.22(5), cannot be held to offend against Art.19, as the elements of procedural reasonableness and natural justice are embodied in Art.22(5) itself. Even otherwise the law of preventive detention is not punitive, since the objective of preventive detention is to prevent a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, the grant of opportunity of hearing or issue of show cause notice before passing of the detention order would essentially frustrate the objective of the law. What the detaining authority is bound to do, is to follow the procedure strictly provided in the statute, as such we are of the view that detenu can claim no right of peremptory hearing or a show cause notice, before the detention order is passed by the authority.