- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Haji Mohd. Akhlaq v. Distt. Magistrate
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner was detained in Central Jail, Meerut pursuant to an order of the District Magistrate dated 21 July 1987 issued under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 on the ground that his detention was necessary for the maintenance of public order. While in custody, he submitted an undated representation addressed to the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 3 August 1987 (according to the petition) requesting that a copy be forwarded to the Union of India. The representation reached the State authorities on 17–18 August 1987 and was rejected by the State Government on 20 August 1987. However, it was not transmitted to the Central Government until 9–10 October 1987, which then rejected it on 16 October 1987 and communicated the decision on 19 October 1987.
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 in the Supreme Court on 7 September 1987 challenging the legality of his continued detention, primarily on the ground that his representation had not been promptly considered by, or even placed before, the Central Government. The Union of India was impleaded on 23 September 1987. The Court issued a rule nisi and ultimately heard the matter leading to the present order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the State Government’s delay in forwarding the petitioner’s representation to the Central Government violated his statutory and constitutional right to have his detention promptly reviewed, thereby rendering the continued detention illegal.
- Consequently, whether the petitioner was entitled to release by issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The State Government failed to transmit his representation to the Central Government promptly, depriving him of the opportunity to obtain revocation of the detention under Section 14(1) of the National Security Act.
- The prolonged and unexplained delay rendered the detention unconstitutional and violative of his fundamental rights.
State Government's Arguments
- The representation was considered and rejected by the State Government on 20 August 1987 and intimation was duly sent to the petitioner.
- The copy sent to the Central Government was eventually located and processed; any delay was not attributable to mala-fide conduct.
Central Government's Position
- Upon receipt of the representation on 10 October 1987, it was promptly considered and rejected on 16 October 1987, and the decision was communicated on 19 October 1987, indicating no delay on its part.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that although the Central Government acted expeditiously once the representation reached it, there was an unexplained and substantial delay of more than two months by the State Government in forwarding the representation. Section 14(1) of the National Security Act empowers the Central Government to revoke any detention order passed by the State Government. That statutory power necessarily implies a corresponding right of the detenu to have his representation considered by the Central Government. The failure of the State Government to transmit the representation in a timely manner effectively denied the petitioner this valuable right. Consequently, the detention—sustained without affording the petitioner prompt consideration by the Central Government—was held to be illegal and constitutionally impermissible.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition was allowed, and a writ of habeas corpus was issued directing the immediate release of the petitioner.
Implications: The decision reinforces the obligation of detaining authorities to forward a detenu’s representation to the Central Government without delay, ensuring the effectiveness of the review mechanism under Section 14(1) of the National Security Act. Failure to do so will invalidate the detention, although the judgment does not set out any broader new legal precedent beyond reaffirming this principle.
Order
1. By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of his continued detention under an order passed by Respondent 1 the District Magistrate, Meerut dated 21-7-1987 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, on being satisfied that it was necessary to do so to prevent him from his prejudicial activities affecting maintenance of public order.
2. On the view that we take, it is not necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the impugned order pertains to maintenance of public order or merely relates to law and order. While the petitioner was detained in Central Jail, Meerut, he handed over a representation addressed to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, to the Jail Superintendent with an endorsement forwarding a copy thereof to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Internal Security Section), North Block, New Delhi. The writ petition was filed in this Court on 7-9-1987 questioning the validity of the impugned order on various grounds. It has been averred in paragraph 12 that the said representation to the State Government with the request that a copy thereof be forwarded to the Central Governmenty was made on 3-8-1987. The last page of the representation annexed to the writ petition mentions the date as 3-8-1987 but it is stated in the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate, Respondent 1 that the representation was undated and was received from the Superintendent on 17-8-1987 and that a copy thereof was also sent to the Central Government through the State Government. There was also a specific ground taken that there was a failure on the part of the Central Government to deal with the representation so far and therefore his prolonged detention was bad in law. On 15-9-1987 this Court issued a rule nisi. On 23-9-1987 the court in view of the averment in paragraph 12 as aforesaid, allowed the petitioner to implead the Union of India as party-respondent. The representation marked to the Central Government was not apparently attended to till 12-10-1987. No doubt, the District Magistrate in the counter-affidavit has stated that the copy of the representation was forwarded to the Central Government through the State Government, but he does not disclose the date when this was done. From paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit sworn by Shiv Basant, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi it is however revealed that the said representation was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 10-10-1987 through the State Government of Uttar Pradesh vide their letter dated 9-10-1987. It is further disclosed that the representation was immediately processed for consideration and the Ministry of Home Affairs took a decision on 16-10-1987 to reject the representation. It is also stated that the decision so taken was communicated to all concerned on 19-10-1987 through a wireless message.
3. From a narration of events it is apparent that there was no delay on the part of the Central Government in considering the representation made by the petitioner. The fact however remains that the representation addressed to the State Government by the petitioner and marked to the Central Government remained unattended to till 19-10-1987. Presumably, the copy of the representation was lying at the Secretariat at Lucknow. It is now accepted in the counter-affidavit sworn by one Dharam Raj Singh, Desk Clerk, Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh that an undated representation of the petitioner was received by the Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut on 17-8-1987, and that the said representation along with the comments of the District Magistrate, Meerut was received by the State Government on 18-8-1987. He states that the representation was duly considered by the State Government and rejected on 20-8-1987 and an intimation to that effect was communicated to the petitioner through the Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut and the District Magistrate. It now appears from this counter-affidavit that on 9-10-1987 the Joint Secretary, Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh received a radiogram from the Central Government enquiring as to whether any representation had been received from the petitioner or not. In response, the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh addressed a letter stating that a copy of the undated representation was also sent by the petitioner to the Central Government and it was requested to search out the same in the Ministry of Home Affairs. There can be no doubt whatever that there was unexplained delay on the part of the State Government in forwarding the representation to the Central Government with the result that the said representation was not considered by the Central Government till 16-10-1987 i.e for a period of more than two months. Section 14(1) of the Act confers upon the Central Government the power to revoke an order of detention even if it is made by the State Government or its officer. That power, in order to be real and effective, must imply a right in a detenu to make a representation to the Central Government against the order of detention. Thus, the failure of the State Government to comply with the request of the detenu for the onward transmission of the representation to the Central Government has deprived the detenu of his valuable right to have his detention revoked by that government. That being so, the continued detention of the detenu must be held to be illegal and constitutionally impermissible.
4. We accordingly allow the writ petition and direct the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus holding the continued detention of the petitioner to be invalid. The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith.
Alert