Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sayed Noor Sayed Nasir, filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the preventive detention order dated 2.3.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Amravati, under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981, on the ground that he was a 'dangerous person'. At the time of the detention order, the petitioner was already in judicial custody since 14.12.2020 in connection with Crime No.685/2020. His bail application had been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on 5.1.2021, and no subsequent bail application was pending. The grounds of detention supplied to the detenu noted that he was in magisterial custody and that his bail applications had been rejected, but did not record any satisfaction that his release was imminent. The petitioner raised multiple grounds including the lack of recorded satisfaction about imminent release, non-communication of grounds due to supply of illegible documents and translations in Marathi despite his understanding only Hindi, and non-supply of certain translated portions. The State argued that although not explicitly recorded, there was material suggesting the possibility of release, that the detenu knew Marathi based on a school certificate, and that the documents supplied were legible. The court examined the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ankit Jalan v. Union of India and Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu. It held that a preventive detention order against a person in custody is permissible only if the detaining authority records a subjective satisfaction that the detenu's release is imminent and that upon release he would engage in prejudicial activities. In the present case, the detention order failed to record any such satisfaction. The court emphasized that preventive detention is an exceptional power that must be strictly construed, and procedural safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution are mandatory. Concluding that the impugned detention order suffered from a fundamental defect, the court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order, and directed the release of the detenu forthwith unless required in any other case. The court did not find it necessary to examine the other grounds of challenge.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Detention of Person in Custody - Requirement of Satisfaction of Imminent Release - Constitution of India, Article 22; Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 - The court held that a preventive detention order against a person already in custody is valid only if the detaining authority records a satisfaction that the detenu's release is imminent and that on release he is likely to indulge in prejudicial activities. In the absence of such record, the detention order is illegal. The detenu was in custody for nearly three months, bail applications had been rejected, and no bail application was pending. The detention order merely noted custody but did not record any satisfaction of imminent release. Held that the detention order was liable to be quashed (Paras 10-17). B) Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention - Strict Construction and Procedural Safeguards - Constitution of India, Articles 19, 21, 22 - The court, relying on Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, emphasized that preventive detention is an exception to Article 21 and must be confined to narrow limits. Procedural safeguards under Article 22(5) are mandatory and must be meticulously complied with. The power of preventive detention has to be strictly construed, and the history of liberty is the history of procedural safeguards (Paras 18-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the preventive detention order dated 2.3.2021 against the detenu already in custody was valid in the absence of recorded satisfaction about imminent release, and whether non-supply of legible documents and translations in a language not understood by the detenu violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the detention order dated 2.3.2021, and directed the detenu to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- preventive detention valid against person in custody only if detaining authority records satisfaction that release is imminent
- satisfaction must be recorded in grounds of detention
- non-communication of grounds includes supply of illegible documents
- preventive detention is an exception to Article 21 and must be strictly construed
- procedural safeguards under Article 22(5) are mandatory and must be meticulously complied with
- translation in a language not understood by detenu amounts to non-communication
