DHUNNA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MORENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order passed under National Security Act, 1980, for short, the 'Act', on 15 -10 -1987 by District Magistrate, Morena, the petitioner came to be detained for a period of 12 months on that order being confirmed by the State Government after the petitioner was heard by the Advisory Board.

(2.) -A. In the instant case, we have examined the proceedings of the Advisory Board which only discloses that "grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu giving him an opportunity to make a representation against the detention order". It is also noted that the detenu was heard, but there is nothing to be read in the proceedings of the Advisory Board to suggest that any representation of the detenu was before the Board or that the defendant was asked whether he was in any manner handicapped in making representation and whether he required any assistance in that regard On these facts, in the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the petitioner's constitutional right under Article 22 (5) has been infringed because at no stage he was given any assistance to make an effective "representation" contemplated under Article 22 (5). Indeed the Board also failed to act under Section 11 of the Act by which the petitioner was deprived of his valuable constitutional right to opt for a written representation.

(3.) STILL , reliance of Shri Gupta on Kamal Kishore Saini (supra) would avail him in respect of his other contention that none of the five Grounds can, in any view of law and fact, be related to the objective of "Public Order" because the activities speak merely of problems of "Law and Order".