MANJU RAMESH NAHAR ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 342 · Decided: 31-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MANJU RAMESH NAHAR ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
MARCH 31, 1999 
B 
[SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Preventive Detention-Conservation of Foreign Exchange and 
prevention of smuggling Activities Act, 197 4-Sections 3, 7-Husband of the 
. appellant de_tained pursuant to an order of detention passed against him on 
C 3.2.1997.-Detention order executed after more than a year on 23.4.98-
Delay unexplained by the respondents except making a vague a/legation 
that the detenu was absconding-Details of any steps taken to execute the 
order not given-Detention order as also the "satisfaction" of the authorities 
passing that order, held, vitiated-Constitution of India, 1950- Article 22. 
D 
An order of detention was passed against the husband of the appellant 
on 3-2-97 under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and. 
prevention of smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The said detention order was 
executed after more than a year on 23-4-98. The writ petition filed before 
the High court challenging the detention order was dismissed. Hence this 
E appeal 
F 
G 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the order of detention 
was vitiated by unexplained delay in executi~g the order after more than a 
year of passing J'a e same. 
On behafr of the respondents, it. was contended that the detenu was 
absconding and it was only after he was apprehended that the detention order 
could be served on him. 
Allowing the Appeal, this Court 
I 
lffELD : 1.1. If the authorities of those who are responsible for the 
execution of the order, sleep over the order and do not execute the order 
against the person against whom it has been issued, it would reflect upon 
the "satisfaction" of the detaining authority and would also be exhibitive .. of 
the fact that the immediate necessity of passing that order was wholly 
H artificial or non-existent. [345-F-G] 
342 
M.R. NAHAR v. U.0.1. 
343 
1.2. The detention order was passed on 3-2-97 but it was executed on A 
23-4-98. Except making a vague allegation that the appellant was absconding 
and was apprehended on 23-4-98 when the order was executed against him, 
the respondents have not given details of any steps that might have been 
taken in the mean time to execute the order against the detenu. Obviously, 
the effect of non- execution of the order was that the authorities themselves B 
gave liberty to the detenu to carry on his earlier activities giving rise to a 
question whether the activities complained of were really prejudicial activities 
within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. The execution of the order of 
detention long after it was passed would have the effect of vitiating the order 
as also the "satisfaction" of the authorities who passed that order. 
(346-E-H] C 
1.3. Section 3 gives power to the Central Government or the State 
Government or any officer of the Central or the state government of specified 
status, to pass, with respect to any person with a view to preventing him from 
acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of 
foreign exchange or with a view to preventing him from smuggling activities, D 
specified therein or harbouring persons engaged in smuggling activities an 
order directing that such person be detained. The actiou under the Section 
can be taken only on "satisfaction". The further requirement is that order 
should have been passed for preventing that person from carrying on the 
prejudicial activities. This implies that as soon as the Government or its E 
officer feels satisfied that an order under this section is necessary, it has 
to be passed and implemented forthwith so that the prejudicial activities 
carried on by the person against whom the order has been passed, may be 
stopped immediately or at the earliest. [345-C-E] 
T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kera/a and Ors., A.I.R (1990) SC 225 F 
= [1989] 3 SCR 945 = [1989] 4 SCC 741; P. M Harikumar v. Union of India 
& Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 691 = A.I.R (1996) SC 70 and SMF Sultan Abdul 
Kader v. Jt. Secy. to Govt. of India & Ors., [1998] 8 SSC 343 = JT (1998) 
4 SC 457, relied on. 
2. Individual liberty is one of the most valuable fundamental rights 
guaranteed by the Constitution to the citizens of this country. In furtherance 
thereof, Article. 22 Lays down the permissible limits of legislation empowering 
preventive detention and further prescribes the minimum procedure that 
must be included in any law permitting preventive detention. 
G 
[344-G; 34
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.