SUKHPAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order Annexure P. I Shri Sukhjinder Singh, Ex. Education Minister, Punjab father of Sukhpal Singh petitioner has been detained by the President of India under the National Security Act, 1980 and lodged at Agartala Jail. Alleging that the detention at a far off place from Punjab was punitive in nature because it deprives the detenu of his right to meet relations arrange defence and to produce evidence before the Advisory Board, the petitioner has moved this Court for obtaining a writ to declare the detention as illegal.

(2.) Respondent State in reply urged that the detention of Shri Sukhjinder Singh at Agartala became necessary to secure the effectiveness of his incarceration and was thus not punitive in nature. It was also asserted that his close relations and even others have had an interview with him in the end of August 1988 and revision against detention had also been tiled by the detenu. 3. I have heard Shri R.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri M.S. Bedi Advocate, for the State and perused the record.

(3.) Referring to the observation in A.I. Roy v. Union of India & anr1. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the detention of the petitioners father at Agartala a place far of from his home land of Punjab is obviously punitive in nature. Relevant observations reads: By Section 5, every person in respect of whom a detention order has been made is liable: (a) to be detained in such place and under such conditions including conditions as to maintenance discipline and punishment for breaches of discipline, as the appropriate Government may, by general or special order specify and (b) to he removed from one place of detention to another place of detention, whether in the same State or in another State by order of the appropriate Government. The objection of the petitioners to these provisions on the ground or their unreasonableness is not wholly without substance. Laws of preventive detention cannot by the backdoor, introduce procedural measures of a punitive kind. Detention without trial is an evil to be suffered but to no greater extent and in no greater measures them is minimally necessary in the interest of the country and the community. It is neither fair nor just that the detenu should have to suffer detention in such placeT as the Government may specify. The normal rule has to be that the detenu will be kept in detention in a place which is within the envirous of his or her ordinary place of residence. If a person ordinarily resides in Delhi, to keep him in detention in a far off place like Madras or Calcutta is a punitive measure by itself which, in mailer of preventive detention at any rate, is not to be encouraged. Besides, keeping a person in detention in a place other than the one where the habitually resides makes it impossible for his friends and relatives to meet him or for the detenu to claim the advantage of facilities like having his own food. The requirements of administrative convenience, safety and security may justify in a given case the transfer of a detenu to a place other than that where he ordinarily resides, but that can only by way of an exception and not as a matter of general rule. Even when a detenu is required to be kept in or transferred to a place which is other than his usual place of residence, he ought not to be sent to any far off place which, by the very reason of its distance, is likely to deprive him of the facilities to which he is entitled. Whatever smacks of punishment must be scrupuluously avoided in matters of preventive detention. Since Section 5 of the Act provides for as shown by its marginal note, the power to regulate the place and conditions of detention, there is one more observation which we would like to make and which we consider as of great importance in matters of preventive detention. In order that the procedure attendent upon detentions should conform to the mandate of Article 21 in the matter of fairness, justness and reasonableness, we consider it imperative that immediately after a person is taken in custody in pursuance of and order of detention, the members of his household, preferably the parent, the child or the spouse, must be informed in writing or the passing of the order of detention and of the fact that the detenu has been taken in custody. Intimation must also be given as to the place of detention, including the place where the detenu is transferred from time to time. This Court has stated time and again that the person who is taken in custody does not forfeit by reason of his arrest, all and every one of his fundamental rights. It is, therefore, necessary to treat the detenu consistently with human dignity and civilized norms of behaviour.