LexSALIM versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
394
SALIM
v.
STATE OF \VEST BENGAL
.fonuary 27, 1975
(M. H. BEG, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND A. C. GUPH, JJ.]
Maime11wu;;1' of lntunal Secul'ity Act. 1971-Words & phrases-Meaning of
'forthwith'-Ncm application of mind-·A. vaila.?ility of alternative remedy of
prosecution whethu im·alidar~s detmtion.
The ord~r of d~tention was pas-1~cl against the petitioner on 13-6-1972.
011
15th June the Dimict Magistrate rtporkd the fact of ma\:ing the order to the
Sta.le Government.
Sta.le GavernmenL approvtd the order on 21st June.
It wa> contended by the appellant·.
(!) Th<'t the Di~trict !\fagistrate did not report the maki'lg of the order
"forthwith" a' r~quired by s~ction 30) and that the detention was,
thcrdore. liable to be set aside.
A
B
c
(2) Since the State Government rejected the repres~ntation on the very
next day, it nm'! he helJ that it did not apply its mind to 1he
representation.
D
(3) The petitioner could have been pros·~cnted for the acts attribu!ed
to him and therefore could not be detained.
Dismissing the petition,
HELD : I..aws o{ Preventive D~tention by which subjo~ts are deprived of their
p~rsonal liberty without the safeguards available in a judicial trial ought to be
coll'Strued with the grea:cst strictness. The delay on the part of the Di:;trict
E
Magistr.tte in reporting to the State Government the fact of making the detention
order would inevitably curt:;,il the period available to th~ State Government for
approving the detention ord•:r.
Su~h a delay may conceivably lead to a hurried
and Cllrsory consideration of the propriety or justification of the order and tkreby
impair a valuable safeguard available to the detenu.
Therefore,
~he
word
'forthwith' cannot he construed so as to permit indolence or laxi'.y on the part
of the oflkcr charged with the duty of reporting the detention.
However. reason-
able allowance has to be made for unavoidable delays, always remembering
that the detaining authority must· explain any long delay by pointing out circum-
F
stances due to which the report 10 the State Government could not be made with
the greatest promptitude.
The report was made to the State Government on
15th June which still left to it a margin of 10 days to consider the merits of
the order. It cannot be said that the delay in making the report left to the
State Government insufficient time to consider whether the order of detention
should be approved.
The ord~r was, in fact, approved on 21st June much before
the expiry of the statutory period.
The order is dated 13th. The explan3tion
of the Department that report could noc he m~de on 14th due to ndminist•·:1tive
G
difficulties is acceptable.
f'·95 G: 396 F-G; 397 B-q
The cont,ention of the
p.;:1ition~r that since the Stat~ Government r~jccted
th~ representation the yery next day. it must be held that it did not <ipply its
mmd to the representa!lon wrN negauved.
The length of time which a dcci sion
takes <loes not necessari1y reffec1s 1~Jt:
~:t-i'e of 1Jp-~n!"Jr~;·..; hrouo:ht to bear nix~n it.
[399 Al
· •
b
The cm1ltntion of t11c petiiianer tl1at
he could
have
been
prosernted
H
for the ai:ts attributed to him wa5 negatived on the ground that availability of
an alternate remedy is not by itself an effective answer to the validity of the
detention. [400 A-BJ
B
c
D
F
G
H
SALIM v. WEST BENGAL (Chandrachud, l.)
395
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.: Writ Petition No. 506 of 1974
Petition U,1der Article 32 of the Constitution. ·
D. N. Mukherjee and Gobind Mukhoty A.C., for the
~etitioner
G. S. C. Chatterjee of Sukumar Basu & Co., for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Comt was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, J.The petitioner,
Skq.
Salim,
challenges
by
this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution an order of deten-
tion passed by the District M:igistrate, 24-Parganas, under the Main-
tenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order was vassed
on
June 13, 1972 avowedly with a view to preventing the petitioner from
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies a•.1d
services essential to the community.
The particulars furnished to the
petitioner refer to two incidents of theft dated January 31 and Feb-
nrary 23, 1972.
The former relates to a theft of underground copper
cables and the latter to a theft of A.C.S.R. Coaductors.
The parti-
culars further mention that on February 24, 1972 the petitioner and
two of his named associates were found in possession oExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.