NARESH KUMAR GOYAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 17 · Decided: 05-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

•• 
\· 
NARESH KUMAR GOY AL 
A 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 5, 2005 
[B.P. SINGH, TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P.K. 
B 
BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Preventive Detention-Object of-,-He/d: ls not curative or reformative 
or punitive-It is devised to afford protection to society from anti-social and C 
subversive elements-The object is not to punish a man for having done 
something but to intercept before he does it, and to prevent him from doing 
so. 
Preventive Detention-Conservation of Foreign Exchange and 
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974-Sections 3(i), (ii) and (iiij and D 
7-Detenu filed writ petition challenging the order of detention-Case of 
detenu that the detention order wm belatedly passed and also that the detaining 
authority took no steps to implement the order-Held: The order was not 
passed for a 'wrong purpose' as alleged-Case did not fall within any of the 
exceptions enumerated in Alka Subhash Gadia 's case which would justifj; 
interference by Court with an order of detention at the pre-execution stage- E 
Hence, High Court was right in declining to quash the detention order-
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 226. 
In exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(i), (ii) & (iii) of the 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities F 
Act, 1974, the State of Bihar passed order of detention against the 
appellant. The appellant filed writ petition challenging the detention order. 
He alleged that the order of detention was belatedly passed and that there 
was also delay in executing the said order since the detaining authority, 
i.e. the State of Bihar did not take any effective steps to arrest appellant 
and serve the order of detention upon him. He alleged that the order of G 
detention had been passed for a 'wrong purpose'. But the High Court 
declined to quash the order of detention at the pre-arrest stage. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
17 
H 
18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1. It is trite law that an order of detention is not a curative 
or reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, avowed object 
of which being to prevent the anti-social and subversive elements from 
imperiling the welfare of the country or the security of the nation or from 
disturbing the public tranquility or from indulging in smuggling activities 
B or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic 
substances etc. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to 
society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but 
to intercept before he does it, and to prevent him from doing so. It, 
therefore, becomes imperative on the part of the detaining authority as 
well as the executing authority to be very vigilant and keep their eyes 
C skinned but not to turn a blind eye in securing the detenue and executing 
the detention order because any indifferent attitude on the part of the 
detaining authority or executing authority will defeat the very purpose of 
preventive action and turn the detention order as a dead letter and 
frustrate the entire proceedings. Inordinate delay, for which no adequate 
explanation is furnished, lead to the assumption that the live and proximate 
D link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is 
snapped. (21-F, G, H; 22-A, BJ 
P.U. Iqbalv. UnionoflndiaandOrs., (1992( I SCC434;AshokKumar 
v. Delhi Administration, (1982J 2 SCC 403 and Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. 
E State of Tamilnadu, (197911 sec 465, relied on. 
2. Coming to the facts of this case, at the highest the case of the 
appellant is that the order of detention was belatedly passed and the State 
of Bihar thereafter took no steps whatsoever to implement the order of 
detention. Apparently the order has been passed with a view to prevent 
F the appellant from smuggling goods or abetting the smuggling thereof etc. 
The present case does not fall within any of the exceptions enumerated in 
Atka Subhash Qadia which would justify interference by Court with the 
order of detention at the pre-execution stage. Though the appellant sought 
to bring this case under the third exception enumerate.d in Alka Subhash 
Gadia, namely, that the order was passed for a wrong purpose, in the facts 
G and circumstances of this case, it is not possible to accept the submission. 
H 
The High Court was, therefore, justified in refusing to exercise jurisdiction 
under Article 226 of the Constitutio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.