Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging a preventive detention order passed under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The petitioner, a karta of a joint Hindu family running a medicine shop in Ranchi, was detained on grounds of selling medicines at inflated prices and refusing to issue cash memos, acts alleged to be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The initial detention order mistakenly used a false name given by the petitioner and was cancelled; a fresh order dated 11 June 1974 was issued under Section 3(2)(iii) of the Act, and the petitioner was arrested on 11 July 1974. The State Government approved the order and referred the matter to the Advisory Board on 9 August 1974. The petitioner's representation was received by the State Government on 16 August 1974 and forwarded to the Advisory Board, which reported on 20 August 1974 that there was sufficient cause for detention. The State Government, however, did not consider the representation or confirm the detention until 15 November 1974, beyond the three-month period from the date of detention. An affidavit filed by a Deputy Collector on 14 October 1974 falsely stated that the representation had already been considered and rejected. The petitioner contended that the failure to consider the representation within a reasonable time and the delayed confirmation rendered the detention invalid. The Court found that the State Government had not offered any explanation for the inordinate delay of three months in considering the representation, violating the constitutional safeguard. It also held that under Article 22(4) of the Constitution, confirmation to continue detention beyond three months must be within three months from the date of detention; the confirmation on 15 November 1974 was beyond that period. The Court strongly condemned the Deputy Collector's false and misleading affidavit. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and declared the detention invalid, setting the petitioner free. The decision followed Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal and D. S. Roy v. State of West Bengal.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - False Statements in Affidavits - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 - In a writ petition under Article 32, the Deputy Collector's affidavit falsely stated that the State Government had considered the detenu's representation when no such consideration had occurred. The Court condemned the irresponsible conduct of a high placed officer making a false and misleading statement on oath to obtain a favourable decision, and adjourned the matter to verify the original record. Held that such misleading statements cannot be tolerated (Paras 858C-D). B) Preventive Detention - Delay in Considering Representation - Prompt Consideration Mandatory - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 22(5) - The State Government was required to consider the detenu's representation promptly and without undue delay, so that if grounds were incorrect or irrelevant, detention could be cancelled. In this case, there was an inordinate delay of three months in considering the representation after the Advisory Board reported sufficient cause on 20 August 1974, with no explanation from the State. Held that unexplained inordinate delay violates constitutional obligation and invalidates detention (Paras 858E-859A). C) Preventive Detention - Confirmation of Detention - Confirmation Within Three Months Mandatory - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 22(4) - Under Article 22(4), confirmation of detention to continue beyond three months must be made within three months from date of detention upon receipt of Advisory Board opinion. The detention order dated 11 July 1974 was confirmed only on 15 November 1974, beyond three months, and the State offered no valid explanation. Held that the order of detention was invalid for want of timely confirmation (Paras 859E-H).
Issue of Consideration
Whether inordinate delay by State Government in considering the detenu's representation without explanation vitiated the detention; whether confirmation of detention beyond three months from the date of detention violated Article 22(4) of the Constitution of India, 1950; whether false and misleading statement in affidavit by State officer warranted condemnation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and declared the detention invalid. The Court held that the State Government's inordinate delay of three months in considering the representation without explanation violated the constitutional obligation, and the confirmation of detention beyond three months from the date of detention was contrary to Article 22(4) of the Constitution. The petitioner was ordered to be set free. The Court also condemned the Deputy Collector for making a false and misleading statement on oath.
Law Points
- detenu's representation must be considered promptly without undue delay
- unexplained inordinate delay renders detention invalid
- confirmation of detention under Article 22(4) must be within three months from date of detention
- false and misleading affidavit by State officer condemned
- State must act with due care in preventive detention matters
