JORO M. SANGMA Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned GA, appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 5. None appears for the respondent No. 1.

(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner/detenu (Shri Joro Sangma) is challenging (i) the impugned detention order dated 25 -03 -2014 issued by the detaining authority i.e. the District Magistrate, West Khasi Hills, Nongstoin 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 petitioner/detenu, (ii) the impugned order of the Government of Meghalaya dated 01 -04 -2014 under Subsection (3) of Section 3 of the MPDA, 1995, for approving the impugned detention order dated 25 -03 -2014 and (iii) the impugned order of the State Government dated 27 -05 -2014 for confirming the impugned detention order dated 25 -03 -2014 and continuing the detention of the detenu for a period of 3 (three) years w.e.f. 25 -03 -2014 to 24 -03 -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."