KONGKHAM BIRKUMAR SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-detenu, Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents-!, 2 and 3 as well as Mr. C. Komol, learned CGSC appearing for the respondent No. 4.

(2.) At the very outset of hearing Mr. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu boldly submitted that the present case is one of the extreme cases where the detaining authority had come to the subjective satisfaction that activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under Sec. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter refers to as 'NSA') and for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detenu is required to be detained under the NSA. is based on no material.

(3.) We are very much conscious of our limited jurisdiction of judicial review over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in the matters relating to detention matter. It is fairly well settled that exercise of power for preventive detention by the executive authority is under the jurisdiction known as 'jurisdiction of suspicion.' The Apex Court in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu TR. SEC. To Govt. & Anr., 2011 (4) Scale 387 (Para 40) held that: