JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Jaswant Singh has been detained under the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the NSA) and has moved this habeas corpus petition on the ground that his detention is illegal. We may look the grounds of the detention for having an idea about the reasons for which the petitioner Jaswant Singh has been detained. 19 cases are said to be pending against him. In one case, the complainant compromised the case with the accused; in two other cases, the witnesses did not appear and the petitioner was acquitted on the ground of no evidence in some cases the police gave a final report, there are other cases under the Rajasthan Excise Act in which the petitioner has been challenged. These cases are pending. Besides this, some cases are still under investigation. For criminal cases under F.I.Rs. Nos. 66/92 and 165/92 of Police Station Kotwali, Dholpur it has been mentioned in the grounds that bail was granted by the court and that was also under the pressure of the petitioner. In the detention order it was also mentioned that for the last 19 years the petitioner with other accused had been committing grave offences against the society and that he had been doing business in illicit liquor and using his influence and at all times he was remaining free.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the detention of the petitioner on a number of grounds. The main ground is that there is violation of provisions of Sec. 8 of the NSA. This provides that the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing not later than ten days from the date of detention, communication to the detained person the grounds on which the order has been made. This has been so provided in order to afford an opportunity of making a representation to the appropriate Government. In the present case, the petitioner was detained on 7th May, 1992 and the grounds of detention were communicated on 13th May, 1992. These dates are not disputed by the respondents. There is no explanation also on the part of the respondents to show that there were exceptional circumstances on account of which the grounds of detention were not communicated to the petitioner within five days of his detention. The provision of Sec. 8 of the NSA is mandatory and when the same is violated, the detention becomes illegal. In Hem Lall Bhandari Vs. State of Sikkim and others (1) it was held that the grounds of detention have to be communicated to the detenue as soon as possible but not later than five days. It was further held:

(3.) In this case also it as held that there was no acceptable or satisfactory explanation as to what the officer did after 6.10.1986 till 14.10.1986 and this by itself is sufficient to hold that Sec. 8(1) has been violated by the officer concerned and on that ground alone the order of detention is liable to be quashed. Similar is the case before us. It is an admitted position that the grounds of detention have not been served as soon as possible and they have been served after five days. No exceptional circumstances have been pointed out for the delay in communicating the grounds of detention. Even if there were exceptional circumstances then reasons for the delay have to be recorded in writing in this case no such reasons have been recorded. The non-compliance of Sec. 8(1) of NSA is manifest and on this ground, alone, the detention of the petitioner becomes illegal and is liable to be quashed.