Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed a habeas corpus petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the preventive detention of the petitioner under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The central issue was whether the State Government had considered the petitioner's representation dated June 23, 1969 with reasonable expedition as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 7 of the Act. The case arose against the backdrop of a detention order made on June 5, 1969 by the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas, West Bengal. The petitioner was arrested and served with grounds on June 7, 1969. The State Government approved the order on June 14, 1969 and forwarded the report to the Central Government. The petitioner made his representation on June 23, 1969, but the State Government placed the case and the representation before the Advisory Board on July 1, 1969. The Advisory Board opined on August 13, 1969 that there was sufficient cause, and the Government allegedly rejected the representation on August 19, 1969, confirming the detention on August 26, 1969. The petitioner contended that the Government had not considered his representation with proper expedition. The State argued that it had referred the matter to the Advisory Board along with the representation and had made further enquiries through the Superintendent of Railway Police, thereby discharging its duty. The Court, after analyzing the statutory scheme under the Preventive Detention Act and the constitutional mandate under Article 22, reiterated the principles laid down in recent decisions including Sk. Abdul Karim & Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Pankaj Kumar Chakrabarty & Ors. v. State of West Bengal. The Court held that the appropriate Government has an independent obligation to consider the representation as soon as possible, and such consideration must be entirely distinct from the Advisory Board's process. The Government must form its own opinion before sending the case to the Board; if it decides to release, the matter need not be referred. The Court found that in the present case, the State Government was guilty of inordinate delay and had postponed consideration until after receiving the Advisory Board's opinion, which constituted a clear infraction of the constitutional provisions. The affidavit provided on behalf of the State gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the failure to provide full information to the Court further militated against the State. Consequently, the detention was held illegal, and the petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention - Right to Representation - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 22(5); Preventive Detention Act, 1950, Section 7 - The detenu has the fundamental right to make a representation against the detention order to the appropriate Government, and the Government must consider it as expeditiously as possible. Held: The obligation to consider the representation is a constitutional necessity and must be discharged with utmost vigilance. B) Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention - Independent Consideration - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 22(5); Preventive Detention Act, 1950, Section 7 - The consideration of the detenu's representation by the appropriate Government is entirely independent of any action by the Advisory Board, including the Board's consideration of the representation. Held: The Government must apply its own mind to the representation irrespective of the Advisory Board's opinion. C) Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention - Expeditious Consideration - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 22(5); Preventive Detention Act, 1950, Section 7 - There must be no delay in considering the representation; the Government must act without any laxity or at its own convenience, as the personal liberty of the citizen is at stake. Held: Inordinate delay renders the detention violative of Article 22(5). D) Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention - Sequence of Consideration - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 22(5); Preventive Detention Act, 1950, Sections 7, 9 - The appropriate Government must exercise its opinion and judgment on the representation before sending the case with the representation to the Advisory Board; if the Government decides to release, it need not refer to the Board; if not, it refers and after the Board's opinion may still release. Held: Postponing consideration until after receipt of the Advisory Board's opinion is an infraction of constitutional provisions.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government considered the petitioner's representation of June 23, 1969 with reasonable and proper expedition as required by Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the State Government was guilty of inordinate delay in considering the petitioner's representation and had postponed consideration until after receipt of the Advisory Board's opinion, thereby violating the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(5). The detention was declared illegal and the petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- The appropriate Government must consider the detenu's representation as soon as possible
- independently of the Advisory Board
- and before making reference to the Board
- any inordinate delay or lack of independent judgment violates the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(5).
