LexMADAN MOHAN MONDAL versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F MADAN MOHAN MONDAL v. IBE STATE OF WEST BENGAL August 2, 1972 [I. D. DUA AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] 761 Preventive Detention-Maintenance of Internal Security Act, (26 of 1971), ss. 3(1) & (2) and Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 22(5)-Delay in considering detenu's representation-Efiect of. The petitioner was arrested pursuant to an order of detention under ss. 3(1) (a)( iii) and 3(2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. His representation to the State Government was rejected 33 days after its receipt. In a petition under Art. 32 challenging his detention, the State Government explained the delay by stating that the go-slow movement launched by the State Government employees and the increase in the V!)lume of work relatina to detentions caused dislocation in the work and consequentlal delay, It was also stated in the counter-41ffidavit that the petitioner was a notorious thief of copper wires and that his activities seriously disrupted the telegrapMc communication system of the railways and dislocated railway service. HELD : ( 1) If preventi\·e detention without trial is to be justified then the Government must comply with due promptitude with all the -n- tial requirements of the Constitution as also cif the Act relating to such detention. The representation made by a detenu to the State has, there- fore, to be considered as early as possible w;thout avoidable delay. This is implicit in Art. 22(5) which prescribes the minimum procedure that must be included in any law permitting preventive detention. When the provisions of the Article or of a law relating to preventive detention pro· viding for safeguards against arbitrary or illegal detention are not com- plied with, then, even if the detention may be valid ab i•itio it ceases to be so as soon as violation of the provisions of the Article or of the law occurs. The time within which the Government must consider the representation will depend upon the circumstances of each case and no rigid limit can be fixed; but any prima facie unreasonable delay must be satisfactorily explained by the detaining authority if the order of deten· lion is to be upheld. [763P-H. 764AJ (2) In the present case, the explanation for the delay is vague and doe• not indicate that there was any real or genuine obstacle to considering the representation within reasonable time. [764Bl G (2) In he present case, the explanation for the delay it vague and does Court it would not advance the cause of justice to postpone the hearing and await the decision of the High court. (7640-EJ H ( 4) Legal safeguards against possible arbitrary exercise of power or abuse or misuse of the provisions of the preventive detention laws de- mand compliance in all situation covered thereby, and to ign~ the safeguards would be to ignore the mandate of the Constitution. Therefore the allegations regarding the petitioner's activities c:mn~ absolve ~ authorities concerned of their constitutional obligation to give appropriate effect to the legal safeguards provided by the Constitution and the Act 14-LIS2Sup Cl/73 [764E-Hl 162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] l S.C.11.. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 215 of 1972. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the en- forcement of fundamental rights. G. S. Rama Roo for the petitioner. G. Mukhoty and G. S. Chatterjee for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua, J.-The petitioner was arrested on November 8, 1971 pursuant to the order of detention of the same date passed under sub-s. (1) (a) (iii) read with sub-s. (2) of s. 3 of the Mainte- nance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971 (hereinafter called the Act). The grounds of detention were also served on him and the matter reported to the State Government on that very day. On November 16, 1971 the State Government accorded its approval and made the necessary report to the Central Gov- ernment. The case was placed before the Advisory Board on December 3, 1971. On December 6, 1971 the petitioner's representation was received by the State Government but it WM considered on January 8, 1972 nearly 33 days after its receipt. The Advisory Board gave its decision on January 13, 1972 and the order of detention was affirmed by the State Government on January 22, 1972. The det.enu was communicated of this order on January 25, 1972. The only ground raised on behalf of the detenu before us is th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.