JOKHU LAL Vs. SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL NAINI ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Supreme Court, while disposing of the Special Leave Petition No. 1069 of 1985 against an order of the Allahabad High Court dated 4-12-1984 in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 9907 of 1984 of Ram Pravesh Singh, by which an order under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act passed against the petitioenr was challenged, passed the following order :-

(2.) By yet another order dated 9-3-1988 in Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1988 arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3253 of 1987 the Supreme Court, in the case of Shiv Ratan Damani v. Supdt. Central Jail. Agra, passed the following order :-

(3.) In view of the above mentioned orders passed by the Supreme Court, in a large number of Habeas Corpus Petitions filed in the High Court challenging the detention under one of the preventive detention laws, a request was made that following the judgments of the Supreme Court in the two cases mentioned above, this Court should direct release of the petitioner forth with if barely 15 days or so were left for the period to expire under the order of detention. This Court accordingly passed orders in a number of habeas corpus petitions directing release of the petitioners in those cases without entering into the merits of the order of detention. Some of the Benches of this Court ultimately granted similar reliefs to the petitioner without entering into the merits of the case, if the period of detention yet to be undergone was less than a month. However when a similar request was made by learned counsel for the petitioner in this case before a Bench of Hon. G. P. Mathur and Hon. S. K. Phaujdar, JJ. it appears the learned counsel for the State raised an objection that the High Court could not pass orders similar to the Supreme Court without entering into the merits of the case as the order, in effect, passed by the High Court amounted to reducing the period of detention of a detenu, which power under the preventive detention laws of this country had been conferred only upon the State Government. After hearing counsel for both the sides the Bench observed as follows :-