JOHNY A. MARAK Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Sr. GA, assisted by Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned GA, appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 5. Mr. R.Deb Nath, learned CGC appears for the respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE petitioner is the wife of the detenu (Shri. Johny. A. Marak). By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging (i) the impugned detention order dated 27 -02 -2014 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 husband, (ii) the impugned order of the Government of Meghalaya dated 10 -03 -2014 under Sub -section (3) of Section 3 of the MPDA, 1995, for approving the impugned detention order dated 27 -02 -2014 and (iii) the impugned order of the State Government dated 28 -04 -2014 for confirming the impugned detention order dated 27 -02 -2014 and continuing the detention of the detenu for a period of 3(three) years w.e.f. 27 -02 -2014 to 26 -02 -2017. 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:

(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."