ASHOK KUMAR versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ORS.

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 05-05-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
ASHOK KUMAR 
v. 
DELHI ADMINSTRATION & ORS. 
May 5, 1982 
(A.P. SBN, E.S. VBNl:ATARAMIAH AND 
R.B. MISRA, JJ .] 
National Security Act 1980, S1. 3 lllld 8 and Con11itution of India 1950 
Article 22(5). 
Detention Ord1r-Period of detention-Specijkation of-Wheth<r mandatory. 
, Ground• of detention-Furnishing of-Delay of two day1-Detention 
order-Whether rendered Invalid. 
"Public Order''-" Law and order''-Distinction betwun. 
Words & Phrasea-"As 1001} as may be"-" As soon as practicable"-
Meaning of-National Socurity Act 1980; S. 8 ll1ld Constitution of India 1950, 
Article 22(5). 
The petitioner who was held at the Central Jail in connettion with some 
of the offences committed by him, was served with an order of detention passed 
by the Gommissio'ner of Police, under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National 
Secu'rity Act 
1980~ stating that his detention was necessary with a view to 
preventing him from "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 
public otder." Two days later he Was served with the grounds of detention and 
copies' of documents and statelnents relied upon in the grounds of detention. 
The Commissioner made a report to the Administrator about the passing of the 
detention order· together with thC groutlds of detention. 
The Administrator 
approved the detention order and sent the report to the CentraJ Government, and 
also informed the petitioner that the order of detention had b~en approved by 
him and that he had a right to make a·representation. The case of the petitioner 
was placed before ttte Advisory Board who wa~ of the opinion that there was 
sufficient cause for his detention. 
The Administrator confirmed the detention 
order under sub-section (I) of section 12 and further directed under section 13 
of the Act thatlthe petitioner be detained for a period of 12 months from the date 
of his detention. 
' 
In his petition under Article 32 or the Constitution the petitioner eon-
tended that : (I) the unexplained delay of two days in furnishing the grounds or 
detention was a denial of the constitutional imperatives of !Art. 22(5) read with , 
section 8 of the Act which cast a duty on the detaining authority to afford the 
detenu "the earliett opportunity of making a representation against th• order of 
detention", (2) there was a failure on tll~ ~rt qf \be Col'1'1!i~io~~r ~ I\'"'' ~s t~ • 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ff 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
708 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1982) ~ S.C.R. 
Administrator to apply their minds and specify the period of detention while 
making:tbe order of detention under SUb·section (2) of section 3 Of the Act, and 
(3) th01"grounds of detention served were not connected with "maintenance of 
public order'', but relate to "maintenance of law. and order''. 
Dismissing the petition, 
HELD : !. (i) Sub-section (I) of oection 8 of tho Act which is in con-
formity with Article 22(5) provides that where a person is detained in pursuance, 
of a detention order made under sub-section (I) or sub-section (2) of section 3 of 
the Act, 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 tha'.n ten days from the date of 
detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made. 
Parliament bas thus by Jaw defined the words uas soon as may be" occuring in 
Art. 22(5) as meaning normally a period of five days. [711 F] 
(ii) The law is that the detaining authority JllUSt, as soon as may ·be, i.e. 
as soon· as practicable, communicate to the deteou the grounds on which the 
order of detention has been made. That period bas been specified by section 8 
of the Act to mean a period ranging from five to ten days depending upon the 
facts and circumstances of each case. [712 D] 
In the instant case, the petitioner was served with the grounds ·of 
detention within a perio~ of two days i.e. within the period allowed by section 8 
of the Act and that was)'as 11soon as practicable.'' The order of detention is 
therefdre not rendered invalid merely because the grounds of detention were 
furnished two days latef. [712 E-F] 
(iii) In A.K. Roy v. Union of India, [1982] I S.C.C. 271 this Court has 
not laid down that the detaining authority making an order of detention under· 
...; 
sub-section (!) or sub-se"etion (2l of section 3 of the Act or the authority approv-
ing of the same, must specify the period of detention in the order. (714 BJ

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.