AHANTHEMMEMA ALIAS NIRMALADEVI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE IMPHAL EAST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein assails her detention order dated 24.3.03 (Annexure A/1 to the writ petition) passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal East District, Manipur, respondent No. 1, in exercise of power conferred upon him by sub-section (3) of section 3, read with section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short, the Act). The grounds of detention have been enclosed to the writ petition as Annexure A/3.

(2.) The petitioner was arrested by the Manipur Police in the evening of 19.3.2003 at New Checkon at Imphal Town on suspicion of her having committed non bailable offences several years ago. While the petitioner was detained in police custody, on 25.3.2003, at about noon, the impugned detention order dated 24.3.2003 was served upon the petitioner alleging that according to police report, the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, and it was considered necessary to detain her with a view to preventing her from acting in the alleged manner and also as she was likely to be released on bail in near future. The grounds of detention dated 28.3.03 issued by the respondent No. 1 were delivered to her in the late afternoon of the same day along with 21 copies of documents mentioned in paragraph 10 of the said set of grounds while the petitioner was in custody. Indicating the grounds of detention under section 3 (2) of the Act vide 28.3.03, the respondent No. 1, informed the petitioner that she had right to make representation to the detaining authority within 12 (twelve) days from the date of detention or till the order was approved by the State Govt, whichever was earlier. The representation was to be sent to the District Magistrate, Imphal East District, Manipur, through the Addl Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. The representation, if any, would be placed before the Advisory Board within 3 (three) weeks from the date of detention and such other documents/ paper connected with her detention as the Govt was bound under the law to produce before the Board for its consideration. Having carefully perused the said set of grounds of detention and considerable number of alleged documents accompanying other grounds of detention, the petitioner submitted her representation on 31.3.03 (Annexure A/4 to the writ petition) to the District Magistrate, Imphal East District, Imphal, Manipur, respondent No. 1, through the Addl Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa, Imphal East District to rescind the impugned order of detention. But without disposal of the said representation, the Govt of Manipur by order dated 3.4.03 (Annexure A/5 to the writ petition) approved the order of detention passed by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner again submitted her representation to the Central Govt addressing to the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Internal Security), North Block, New Delhi-110001 on 7.4.03 (Annexure A/6 to the petition) for revocation of her detention under section 14 of the Act and the same was routed through the Addl Superintendent, Central Jail, Sajiwa and the Chief Secretary to the Govt of Manipur. She also preferred another representation on the same day i.e., 7.4.03 (Annexure A/7 to the writ petition) to the Chairman, Advisory Board (NSA), Manipur, constituted under the Act to expedite her release with a prayer to convey the just and proper opinion of the Advisory Board to the State Govt and the said representation was also duly routed through the Addl Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa and the Chief Secretary to the Govt of Manipur, but those representations had not been considered by the competent authority at that relevant time and as such no decision had been taken as regards the revocation of the detention order of the petitioner prior to placement of the entire matter before the Advisory Board. The case of the petitioner was taken up by the Advisory Board on 19.3.03 and the petitioner was produced and heard in person. After conclusion of the hearing of her case on the same day, the Advisory Board submitted its report dated 22.4.2002 to the Govt within few days thereafter. The Govt by its order dated 5.5.03 (Annexure A/11 to the writ petition) confirmed the detention of the petitioner for a period of 12 months. After receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board only, the representation dated 31.3.2003 presented by the petitioner before the respondent No.1 was rejected by the State Govt on 28.4.03 and the same was communicated to her on 2.5.03. As regards the representation to the Central Govt, the same was also rejected on 2.5.03 by the Central Govt (Annexure A/12 to the writ petition) which was communicated to her on 10.5.03. But her representation dated 7.4.03 (Annexure A/7 to the writ petition) has not yet been attended to.

(3.) In the back drop of this factual situation, even though the petitioner- detenue raises several grounds to impugn the order of detention, yet however, Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, restricted his submissions only to the grounds (i) non-consideration of the representations dated 31.3.2003 and 7.4.03 addressed to the detaining authority and the Advisory Board respectively, by the respondent No. 1 himself prior to the approval of the detention by the State Govt and by the State Govt being the appropriate Govt despite the representation addressed to the Advisory Board being duly routed through the competent authorities respectively, and (ii) the inordinate delay in considering the representations of the petitioner by the appropriate Govt resulting in flagrant violation of the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India.