SHYAMAL DAS ALIAS SIMUL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order, dated 14.2.2006, passed, under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short, 'the NSA, 1980'), the District Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala, has placed the petitioner in preventive detention. This order of detention was made pursuant to a report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura, Agartala. The petitioner was, on 14.2.2006, served with the order of detention along with the grounds on which the detention order was made and his order of detention has been approved by the State Government on 20.2.2006. Aggrieved by his detention, the petitioner has challenged the same by making this application, under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to release the petitioner from detention.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned Asstt. Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India. We have also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the State of Tripura.

(3.) While considering the present writ petition, what needs to be borne in mind that the Constitution makes it mandatory for the High Courts and also the Supreme Court to zealously guard against the abuse of the liberty of persons by the State. While exercising this constitutional obligation, the High Court may not be unmindful of the harmful consequences of the activities, which a detenu may be alleged to have been involved in. While, however, discharging the constitutional obligation to enforce the fundamental rights of a person, more particularly, when the right relates to his personal liberty, the Court cannot allow itself to be influenced by the conditions, which had led to the passing of an order of preventive detention against such a person and ignore, under such influence, the denial of the rights, which the Constitution and the laws enacted confer on such a detenu. Observed the Supreme Court, in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union of India, reported in (1995) 4 SCC 51: "We are not unmindful of the harmful consequences of the activities in which the detenus are alleged to be involved. But while discharging our constitutional obligation to enforce the fundamental rights of the people, more specifically, the right to personal liberty, we cannot allow ourselves to be influenced by these considerations."