SHARAD DADU Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BHOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Magistrate, Bhopal in exercise of powers vested in him under Sub-Sec. (2) read with Sub-Sec. (3) of S. 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, made an order of detention dated 15-10-1988 against one Kishore Dadu son of Thakur Dadu, aged 21 years, r/o MACT Hostel No. 6, Bhopal on the ground that it was necessary to do so with a view to preventing the said person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In execution of the said order, the said person was taken into custody and lodged in the Contral Jail Bhopal on 18- 11 - 1988. Thereafter, on the basis of the advice of the Advisory Board, the detention order passed against the said detenu was confirmed by the State Government under Sub-sec. (1) of S.12 of the Act vide its order dated 6- 1 -1989It was specified in its confirmatory order that the detention of the detenu would continue for a period of twelve months from the date of his detention i.e. upto 17-11-1989.

(2.) During the period of detention, the State Government, in exercise of its powers u/S. 15 of the Act, directed the temporary release of the detenu for a total period of nine months vide orders dated 14-3-1989, 12-6-1989 and 8-9-1989 passed by it from time to time. Under the last of the said orders i.e. one dated 8-9-1989 the detenu was directed to report back to the Supdt., Central Jail, Bhopal after the expiry of the period of his temporary release on 16-l2-1989. Thereafter, a further order was passed by the State Government on 30-11-1989 informing the detenu that as a result of his nine months' release on parole as aforesaid, the figure of '17-11-1989' mentioned in the confirmatory order dated 6-1-1989 would stand modified and substituted by the figure of '16-8-1990' i.e. in other words, his detention under the detention order in question would continue upto '16-8-1990' instead of '17-11-1989'. It is the legality and constitutional validity of the order dated 30-11-1989 passed by the State Government, extending the period of detention upto '16-8-1990' in place of '17-11-1989', by adding to the original period of twelve months a further period of nine months during which he had been temporarily released u/S. 15 of the Act, which is challenged on behalf of the detenu in this petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus filed by his cousin.

(3.) Now, it is apparent that since the National Security Act is a law providing for 'preventive detention as permitted by Cls. (4) to (7) of Art. 22 of the Constitution, its provisions are to be read subject to and in the light of the safe-guards against their possible misuse contained in the said Clauses and the other provisions of the Constitution. Before proceeding to deal with the question arising for consideration in the petition, it is convenient to have a look at the relevant provisions of the Act. It is sub-section (2) of S. 3 of the Act which confers powers to make a preventive order of detention on the appropriate Government. The said sub-section reads as follows : "'The Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and service essential to the community it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained." Sub-sec. (3) of S. 3 of the Act provides for conferment of power upon District Magistrates or Commissioners of Police to make orders of detention under Sub-Sec. (2) of S. 3 under certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions.