BENHUR M. SANGMA Vs. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. S.G. Momin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Sr. GA, assisted by Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned GA, appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. R. Deb Nath, learned CGC, appearing for the respondent No. 3.

(2.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 13 -03 -2014 passed in the WP(Crl) No. 12 of 2013 wherein and whereunder the learned Single Judge held that the original records before the Court shows that detention order was confirmed vide order dated 04 -12 -2013 on the recommendation of the Advisory Board but the learned Single Judge did not consider the other grounds for assailing the impugned detention order. The appellant/detenu (Shri Benhur M. Sangma) is challenging (i) the impugned detention order dated 29 -09 -2013 issued by the detaining authority i.e. the District Magistrate, West Garo Hills District, 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 appellant/detenu, (ii) the impugned order of the Government of Meghalaya dated 10 -10 -2013 under Sub -section (3) of Section 3 of the MPDA, 1995, for approving the impugned detention order dated 29 -09 -2013 and (iii) impugned confirmation order dated 04 -12 -2013. 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."