(1.) DETENTION laws undoubtedly curtail the liberty of citizens. These laws have nonetheless been regarded as necessary because the State must have some machinery to prevent harm to the society. But then, these have been characterised as evil also, not to speak of their being draconian. We have to consider the question posed in this case in this background. The question is as to when can the grounds be said to have been communicated to a detenu.
(2.) THE broad facts alone may be noted to answer this question. The same is that the petitioner had been arrested, according to him, on 9.4.1981 and was once bailed out on 22.4.1981 to be arrested again on the same day in connection with some other case. He was ordered to be released on bail in that case on 7.5.1981 and after he had furnished necessary bail bonds etc, respondent No. 3 refused to release him on the ground that an order of detention under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the Act) had been passed against him. The grounds of detention was served on the petitioner on 14.5.1981. The grounds were thus served later than 5 days from the date of detention, and according to the petitioner, there were no exceptional circumstances for not communicating the grounds within 5 days and no reasons for the same have also been recorded. If this were to be the position, the detention would undoubtedly be in violation of the constitutional safeguards as well as the statutory provision contained in Section 8(1) of the Act.
(3.) THOUGH the case of the petitioner is that he was under detention since 7.5.1981, from the records produced by the State, we are satisfied, as is the case of the respondents, that the detention was from 8.5.1981. The grounds must have been communicated therefore within 13.5.1981, but records again clearly show that copy of the grounds was received by the detenu on 14 -5 -81. It was thus later than 5 days from the date of detention even if 8.5.1981 is taken to be that date.