BRIJENDRA SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner-Brijender Singh Yadav prays for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus, challenging validity and constitutionality of impugned detention order dated 16.10.2018 passed by District Magistrate, Varanasi/Respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as 'the detaining authority') under Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act , 1980 (for short 'the NSA') on being satisfied that the petitioner's detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, as well as confirmation order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the Under Secretary, Home (Confidential) Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow (Respondent No. 3). Petitioner has also prayed for direction to the respondents to set the petitioner at liberty and to pay compensation to him.

(2.) The order of detention along with the grounds of detention was served on the petitioner on 16.10.18. Against the said order, the petitioner made a representation dated 29.10.18 to the Secretary, Department of Home and another representation to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the NSA. The case of the petitioner, along with his representation was placed before the Advisory Board, who opined that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. Accordingly, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 12(1) of the NSA, the State Government confirmed the aforesaid order of detention and directed that the petitioner be detained for a period of three months from the date of his detention vide order dated 29.11.18.

(3.) According to the grounds of detention, the activities of petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and have disturbed the normalcy of the society. An FIR was lodged against him on 05.10.2018 vide Case Crime No. 1065 of 2018, under Sections 353 , 505 (1)(b) of IPC , 3 and 4 of the Police (Incitement of Disaffection) Act , 1922 and 66 (D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, at Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi. While petitioner was in jail in that case, on 12.10.2018, the In charge of Police Station Cantt., Varanasi sent a report to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi alleging that petitioner is indisciplined and a person of abettor tendency and he was even dismissed from police department for his misdeeds. He used to incite disciplined UP police force against gazetted officers posted in police. Petitioner has formed a Non-Gazetted Police Welfare Association as 'Rakshak Kalyan Trust' and he claims to be leader of police personnels posing himself as President of alleged organisation. On 04.10.2018, he had aired his interview on news channel 'Rakshak Kalyan News Channel', wherein he exhorted police personnels to mark their protest by wearing black ribbons and to proceed on mess-strike and uttered that thereafter such a tremendous agitation would be launched, that history will testify the same. It was further alleged that petitioner has incited the police personnels of entire State, against the Government established in accordance with the Constitution of India, and if police personnels fell victim to his incitement, the same would affect essential services of the State Government. A reference was also made to an incident of 05.10.2018, wherein petitioner has addressed the police personnels on the main gate of Collectorate, Varanasi, while an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was in force and he exhorted that legal rights of police personnels have been violated by sending police personnels to Jail in Vivek Tiwari Murder Case of Lucknow. It was further stated that petitioner was inciting police personnels against police officers by sending messages to them through mobile phone to mark their protest by wearing black ribbons and thereafter to observe mess strike by boycotting food of mess. The petitioner was also exhorting police personnels not to attend phone calls of officers while the employees present in the said gathering were also showing their agreement and solidarity with his views. It was alleged that there is grave apprehension of disturbance of public order due to inflammatory speech delivered by the petitioner and that public persons standing nearby were saying that if such a situation arises, it will be difficult for them to live in the society as criminals will start to roam freely in the society. Due to the above stated facts, petitioner was also challaned under Section 151 Cr.P.C. and an FIR was lodged against him vide Case Crime No. 1065 of 2018, under Sections 353 , 505 (1)(b) of IPC , 3 and 4 of the Police (Incitement of Disaffection) Act , 1922 and 66 (D) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2000, Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi. It was further alleged that incident dated 5.10.2018 was reported in newspapers and due to incitation of the petitioner, police personnels of different States have indulged in showing their protest by wearing black ribbons, which has gone viral on social media. If petitioner is released on bail, he will certainly cause serious agitation leading to disturbance of public order. In view of the above facts and the feedback received through local intelligence unit, there was grave apprehension of disturbance of public order. Petitioner Brijendra Singh Yadav has filed an application for bail and there is every likelihood that after being released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities. It was further stated that earlier petitioner has incited police personnels in the area of police station Civil Lines, Allahabad and in that regard a case was also registered against him vide Crime No. 65/11 under Section 353 IPC and 3(2)4 of Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act , 1966. It was stated that all these facts testify that activities of petitioner are against maintenance of public order. Presently he is detained in District Jail, Varanasi in Case Crime No. 1065 of 2018 and his bail application is pending in the court of the District Judge, Varanasi and that after his release on bail, he will disturb the public order by inciting the police personnels. Hence, detention of the petitioner under NSA is necessary.