LexSMT. PREM LATA SHARMA versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MATHURA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SMT. PREM LAT A SHARMA
A
v.
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MATHIJRA AND ORS.
MARCH 31, 1998
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.]
B
National Security Act, 1980 : Sections 3(3) and 14.
Preventive Detention-Right of detenu to make representation to Central
Government-Detention order-Detenu 's representation against-Rejection C
by State Government-Representation forwarded by State Government to
Central Government-Rejection of representation by Central Government
also-Second representation made by detenu to Central Government-Failure
of detaining authority to forward second representation on the ground that
it was made after extraordinary delay-Writ petition by wife of detenue- D
T
Stand of detaining authority that earlier representation of Revenue was
rejected-Therefore it was not considered proper to forward the subsequent
belated representation made after four months of the passing of the detention
order-Held the stand of the detaining authority was wholly untenable-
There is no period of limitation regarding exercise of a right of a detenu to E
make a representation and the corresponding obligation of the Cr;ntral
Government to consider the same for deciding upon the question of revocation
of the detention order-When the representation was made to the Central
Government it was for it and not for the detaining authority to decide
whether the representation should be rejected on the ground that his earlier F
representation had already been considered and rejected-Refasal on the
part of the detaining authority to send the representation of the detenu to
the Central Government resulted in denial of the right conferred on him
under Article 22(5)-Detention order quashed as it became illegal.
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 22(5).
Detention order-Representation of detenu-Failure of detaining
authority to forward the same to Central Government-Held violative of
Article 22(5).
G
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (CRL.) No. H
617
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998) 2 S.C.R.
A 290 of 1997.
B
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
K.B. Sinha and Ashok Kumar Sharma for the Petitioner.
R.K. Singh and A.S. Pundir for the Respondents.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :
Pursuant to an order dated April 26, 1997 made by the District Magistrate,
Mathura (hereinafter referred to 'the obtaining authority') in exercise of his
powers under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 ('Act' for short),
Suresh Chander Sharma, a resident of Alwar Kunj in the city of Vrindavan,
C has been detained since May 5, 1997 with a view to prevent him from acting
in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Against his
detention he made a representation to the State Government on May 14, 1997
which was rejected on May 23, 1997. A copy of the said representation, along
with para-wise comments, was forwarded by the State Government on May
D 21, 1997 to the Home Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi for
consideration. The Central Government also rejected the representation of the
detenu on August 6, 1997. Thereafter, on August 22, 1997 the deteou made
a representation to the Home Secretary, Government of India, through the
Superintendent of Mathura Jail, where he is confined. By its letter dated
August 26, 1997 the detaining authority informed the detenu that the
E representation could not be sent to the Central Government as it was made
after extraordinary delay. The detaining authority pointed out that according
to the Rules the said representation should have been made within three
weeks from the date of his detention. Thereafter, the petitioner, who happens
to be wife of the detenu, filed this petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus.
F
The only point that has been urged in support of this petition is that
the detenu has a right to make a representation to the Central Government,
independent of the representation he made to the State Government, to
persuade the former to invoke its powers of revocation of the detention order
under Section 14 of the Act and that by refusing to send the representation
to the Central Government the detaining authority has deprived him of his
G such right.
In repudiating the above contention the detaining authority relied upon
the following averments made in its supplementary counter affidavit:-
"That the copy of the representation dated 14.5.1997 was already
forwarded for consideratExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.