LAWS(MEGH)-2015-6-27

PRINGCHI N. MARAK Vs. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

Decided On June 16, 2015
Pringchi N. Marak Appellant
V/S
The State Of Meghalaya And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.Bhattacharjee, 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. 1 to 4. Mr. R.Deb Nath, learned CGC appears for the respondent No.5.

(2.) The petitioner is the sister of the detenu (Shri. Balgra N. Marak). By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging (i) the impugned detention order dated 25-03-2014 issued by the detaining authority i.e. the District Magistrate, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar 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 brother, (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 14-05-2014 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.

(3.) 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: