RUDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition prays for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ, order or direction to quash the impugned Detention Order dated 11. 4. 2002. There is also a prayer for setting the Petitioner at liberty, which has been rendered infructuous as the Detention Order has already run its course. The challenge is predicated on three grounds- (a) delay in passing the Detention Order, (b) delay in execution of the Detention Order and (c) non-supply of documents.

(2.) ALMOST four decades ago it had been observed in Moti Lal Jain -vs-State of Bihar, AIR 1968 SC 1509 that the interest of society are no less important than that of an individual and that when these two rights collide with each other, a balance must be maintained between them by the Courts. A score years later, in T. A. Abdul Rahman -vs- State of Kerala, (1989) 4 SCC 741 = AIR 1990 SC 225 the Supreme Court opined that "when there is unsatisfactory and unexplained delay between the date of detention and the date of securing arrest of the detenu such a delay would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority leading to a legitimate inference that the detaining authority was not really and genuinely satisfied as regards the necessity for detaining the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner". These observations have been extracted and reiterated in Rajinder Arora -vs- Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 1719: 2006 (4)SCC 796. This kind of delay has been found to be fatal in P. M. Hari Kumar -vs-Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 691 and SMF Sultan Abdul Kader -vs- Jt. Secy. to govt. of India, (1998) 8 SCC 343. A complete analysis of the law is available in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Dalbir Singh-vs- Union of india, 1995 I AD (Delhi) 1169 which deals with the circumstances that can be considered as constituting delay both in the passing of the Detention Order as well as its execution. Dalbir Singh also discusses the facet of non-supply of documents. Therefore, it would apply on all fours to the case in hand unless, in the decade that has elapsed since its pronouncement, the Supreme Court has varied the law. It appears to us that the law has not been changed. This is evident from a reading of Rajinder Arora, Vinod K. Chawla -vs- Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 337 and Sheetal Manoj Gore -vs- State of Maharashtra, (2006) 7 SCC 560.

(3.) INDEED, a plethora of precedents has been cited before us by learned counsel for the parties. In Sk. Nizamuddin -vs- State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 sc 2353 it has been observed that the Detaining Authority is obliged "to place all relevant facts before the Court and if there is any delay in arresting the detenu pursuant to the Order of Detention which is prima facie unreasonable, the state must give reasons explaining the delay". In that case no explanation had been tendered and the Detention Order was quashed. The facts in Issac Babu -vs-Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 135 were that the Detenu was implicated by the main culprit in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act recorded on 30. 11. 1986. The Detention Order came to be passed only on 7. 10. 1987 and was executed on 23. 5. 1988. The delay was considered sufficient reason to quash the detention Order. In A. Mohammed Farook -vs- Jt. Secy. to G. O. I. , JT 1999 (10) SC 290 : 2000 (2) SCC 360 the Order was made on 25. 2. 1999 and executed on 5. 4. 1999. But in the interregnum the Detenu was available in Court proceedings on 25. 2. 1999 and 25. 3. 1999. Since no explanation was forthcoming as to why the order was not executed at least on these dates, it was quashed. In Abdul Kader the Detention Order was passed on 14. 3. 1996 and executed on 7. 8. 1997 and the court found that no explanation had been given for the period 14. 3. 1996 to 25. 4. 1996. In P. V. Iqbal -vs- Union of India, 1992 (1) Crimes 166 the Detention order was dated 21. 8. 1989, received by the Superintendent of Police on 1. 9. 1989 who further dispatched it to the Circle Inspector, Thrissur, who thrice reported that the Detenu was not available in his native place. The Government issued an order under Section 7 (1) (b) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act) on 14. 5. 1990. Eventually, the Detenu was arrested on 9. 8. 1990 from his village. The Court was of the view that "the Detaining Authority, after passing the Detention Order, was indifferent in securing the Detenu by not taking appropriate action with greater promptitude. The police officials have treated the Warrant of Arrest in a casual manner and unduly delayed its execution". The Order was quashed for this reason. In K. P. M. Basheer -vs- State of Karnataka, 1992 Crl. L. J. 1927 : (1992) 2 SCC 295 the Detenu was, on 12. 11. 1990, found in possession of gold with foreign making for which no valid explanation was forthcoming. The impugned order was passed on 7. 1. 1991 and it was served on 28. 6. 1991. The Order could have been served on the Detenu as he had appeared before the Assistant collector of Customs on 6. 2. 1991 and 20. 2. 1991. It was in these circumstances that the Court was unable to find the live and proximate links between the grounds of detention, and took the view that the purpose of detention had snapped on account of undue and unreasonable delay. It should be noted that section 7 (1) (b) of the COFEPOSA Act had not been resorted to.