SMT. PEBAM NINGOL MIKO DEVI versus STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 27-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 12 S.C.R. 429 
SMT. PEBAM NINGOL MIKOi DEVI 
v. 
STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1849 of 2010) 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 
[D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
A 
B 
National Security Act, 1980 -
s. 3(2) - Preventive 
detention - Legality - Editor of a Daily evening paper 
detained under the National Security Act - Detention order -
C 
Challenge to - Held: There was no reasonable basis for the 
detention order, and there was no material to support the 
same - None of the documents relied on by the detaining 
Authority in passing the detention order could be deemed to 
be pertinent - Delay in forwarding the representation of the 
D 
detenu to Central Government also remained unexplained -
Sufficient ground made out for quashing the order of 
preventive detention - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 
22(5) - Judicial review - Purpose of - Delay 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.161 - Statements 
under - Held: Cannot be taken as sufficient grounds in the 
absence of any supportive or corroborating grounds - S. 161 
statements are not considered substantive evidence, but can 
only be used to contradict the witness in the course of a trial 
- Evidence. 
E 
F 
The husband of the appellant was the Editor of a 
Manipuri Daily evening paper. He was detained under 
Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 on the 
allegation that he was involved in extorting money from 
G 
contractors and engineers of Public Health Engineering 
Department and Forest Department of Manipur 
Government by delivering demand letters which he 
printed in his own press; and that this extortion resulted 
429 
H 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A.. 
in a terror wave in the general public which was 
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 
The appellant filed a habeas corpus petition before 
the High Court questioning the detention on various 
8 grounds viz.: (1) that the allegations made in the 
detention order were vague and irrelevant and not 
sufficient to deprive the detenu of his fundamental rights 
guaranteed under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution; (2) that 
there were no cogent materials upon which the subjective 
C satisfaction of the detaining Authority that the detenu was 
likely to be released on bail was arrived at; (3) that there 
was a delay in forwarding the representation to the 
Central government; (4) that all the procedural 
requirements of Article 22 are mandatory in character and 
even if one of the procedural requirements is not 
D complied with, the order of detention would be rendered 
illegal. The High Court dismissed the petition. 
In the instant appeal, the question arising for 
consideration was whether, in the fact and circumstances 
E of the case, a prima facie case for release of the detenu 
was made out. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. Individual liberty is a cherished right, one of 
F the most valuable Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the 
Constitution to the citizens of this Country. The 
Constitution of India protects the liberty of an individual. 
Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person 
shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except 
G according to procedure established by law. In matters of 
preventive detention such as this, as there is deprivation 
of liberty without trial, subsequent safeguards are 
provided in Article 22 of the Constitution. They are, when 
any person is detained pursuant to an order made under 
H 
PEBAM NINGOL MIKOi DEVI v. STATE OF MANIPUR 431 
AND ORS. 
any law providing for preventive detention, the authority 
A 
making the order is required to communicate the grounds 
on the basis of which, the order has been made and give 
him an opportunity to make a representation against the 
order as soon as possible. [Para 4] [435-C, E-G] 
2. In matters of this nature, this Court normally will 
B 
not go into the correctness of the decision as such but 
will only look into decision making process. Judicial 
review is not an appeal from a decision but review of the 
manner in which the decision was made. The purpose of 
review is to ensure that the individual receives a fair 
C 
treatment. The fact that the grounds stated in the order 
of detention are sufficient or not, is not within the ambit 
of the discretion of the court and it is the subjective 
satisfaction of the detaining authority which is implied. 
However, if one of the grounds or reasons which lead to 
D 
the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority 

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