CHONGTHAM ONGBI SABITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This usual habeas corpus application has some unusual aspects involved in it. The attack on the detention order is not on worn out grounds, but on a novel score. It is urged that the respondents could not have invoked the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980, for short the Act, because of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. To appreciate this, let the facts be stated first.

(2.) The detenu C. Gogo Singh alias Tikendrajit Singh was an underground member of "Red Brigade". To persuade the extremists to join the national mainstream, some assurances were given by the Government if they were to come over-ground. The one assurance with which we are concerned is that "All cases against them shall be withdrawn". Such an appeal is said to have been distributed widely by the Director of Information and Public Relations, Manipur Government. This fact is not denied in so many words by the respondents. Annexure-A/1 is the copy of the "Appeal to the young Extremists" containing this facility. Annexure-A/2 dated 14-9-81 speaks of grant of rehabilitation money to the extremists. It may be stated that Annexure-A/1 itself speaks of "Money and other aids to rehabilitate". The case of the petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu is that her husband surrendered before the Deputy Chief Minister, Government of Manipur, on 20-11-82 in pursuance of the terms and conditions given in Annexures-A/1 and A/2. The detenu was however, arrested soon thereafter on 9-12-82 in connection with certain FIR cases. The impugned order of detention came to be passed on 1-2-83 with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and the maintenance of public order.

(3.) The validity of the detention has been first assailed by the young counsel Shri S. Jayanta Singh on the score of violation of the promise held out in Annexure-A/2 that all cases against the extremists shall be withdrawn. It is urged that the respondents are estopped in law and in equity to pass the impugned order based on the activities which were allegedly undertaken by the detenu prior to his surrender. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is strongly pressed into service in this connection.