HETCHIN HAOKIP versus STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 597 · Decided: 20-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
597
HETCHIN HAOKIP
v.
STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 911 of 2018)
JULY 20, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
National Security Act, 1980  –  s.3(4) – Power to make orders
detaining certain persons – Detention order against detenu – District
Magistrate reporting the detention to the State Government on the
fifth day, after the detention order – Challenge to, on the ground of
failure of the detaining authority to report the detention to State
Government ‘forthwith’ as provided u/s. 3(4) – High Court held
that as long as the report to the State Government is furnished within
twelve days of detention, it would not prejudice the detenu – On
appeal, held: Expression ‘forthwith’ u/s. 3(4) must be interpreted to
mean reasonable time and without any undue delay – There should
be no laxity in reporting the detention to the Government – On facts,
the District Magistrate offered no explanation for submitting the
report to the State Government five days after passing the order of
detention – This vitiated the order of detention – Thus, the order of
the High Court set aside.
The issue before this Court is whether the provisions of
Section 3(4) of the National Security Act, 1980, requiring the
detaining authority to report the detention to the State
Government ‘forthwith,’ have been violated.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 “Forthwith,” under Section 3(4) of the National
Security Act, 1980 does not mean instantaneous, but without
undue delay and within reasonable time. Whether the authority
passing the detention order reported the detention to the State
Government within reasonable time and without undue delay, is
to be ascertained from the facts of the case. [Para 13] [604-A-B]
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 597
    597
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
1.2 The High Court was not correct in holding that as long
as the report to the State Government is furnished within twelve
days of detention, it would not prejudice the detenu. It is settled
law that a statute providing for preventive detention has to be
construed strictly. While “forthwith” may be interpreted to mean
within reasonable time and without undue delay, it certainly should
not be laid down as a principle of law that as long as the report to
the State Government is furnished within 12 days of detention, it
will not prejudice the detenu. [Para 15] [604-F]
1.3 The detaining authority must furnish the report at the
earliest possible. Any delay between the date of detention and the
date of submitting the report to the State Government, must be
due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the
authority and not because of administrative laxity. [Para 16]
[605-A-B]
1.4 In the instant case, the District Magistrate submitted
the report to the State Government on the fifth day (17 July 2017),
after the date of the detention order (12 July 2017). The reason
for the delay of five days is neither mentioned in the State
Government’s order confirming the detention order, nor in the
impugned judgment. It was for the District Magistrate to
establish that he had valid and justifiable reasons for submitting
the report five days after passing the order of detention. As the
decision in *Joglekar holds, the issue is whether the report was
sent at the earliest time possible or whether the delay in sending
the report could have been avoided.  Moreover, as the decision
in **Salim holds, there should be no laxity in reporting the
detention to the Government. Whether there were
administrative exigencies which justify the delay in sending the
reports must be explained by the detaining authority. In the
instant case, the District Magistrate offered no explanation. This
would vitiate the order of detention. [Para 17] [605-B-E]
1.5 It is evident, that there was no traverse to the
submission that the act of reporting the detention after five days
was in violation of Section 3(4). The District Magistrate did not
furnish any reason whatsoever for having taken five days to
report the detention to the state government. There was no
traverse of the ground taken. No justification was sought to be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
599
established for the delay in reporting the detention to the state
government. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court
dismissing the Writ Petition is set aside. [Paras 18-19]
[606-A-C]
**S.K. Salim v. State of West Bengal (1975) 1 SCC
653 : [1975] 3 SCR 394 – relied on.
*Keshav Nilkanth J

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