STATE OF PUNJAB versus SUKHPAL SINGH

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 420 · Decided: 06-10-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
SUKHPAL SINGH 
OCTOBER 6, 1989 
B 
[MURARI MOHON DUTT AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.] 
c 
National Security Act, 1980-Sections 3(2), 9, 10, 11 and 12-
Detention Order-Advisory Board-Not a judicial body-Charged 
with responsibility of advising Executive Government-Decisions when 
binding on Government. 
Sri Sukhjinder Singh has been under detention pursuant to the 
order dated 28.5.1988 of the Government of Punja)>; Department of 
Home Affairs and' Justice passed in exercise of the powers conferred by 
sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 herein-
after referred to as "the Act" read with section 14A as inserted by 
D 
National Security (Amemdment) Act, 1987 with a view to preventing 
him 'from mdulging .in activities prejudicial to the secnrity of the State and 
maintenance of public order and interference with the efforts of the 
Govt. in coping wi!h the terrorists and disruptive activities. 
The detenu's son Sukhpal Singh filed Criminal Writ Petition 
ij No. 1393 of 1988 in the High Court praying inter-alia for a writ of 
Habeas Corpus, quashing the detention order, production of the detenu 
in the Court on the date of hearing, directing the authorities to arrange 
for the presence of the detenu before the Advisory Board at Chandigarh 
and also to make arrangements & pay for the expenses required to be 
incurred for arranging the presence of detenu's witnes~s to be pro-
F duced before the Board at Agartala and also his relatives and counsel so 
as to effectively assist him in regard to the presenting of his case before 
the Board. 
The High Court by order order 27.9.88 dismissed the Writ Peti-
tion but ordered that the petitioner·would approach the Advisory Board 
G at Chandigarh with the requesi for allowi~g the detenu to produce 
evidence before it at Agartala and in case his prayer was granted by the 
Board, the expenses for taking those witnesses to Agartala would be 
borne by the respondent-state. 
· 
Sukhpal Singh later moved Criminal Writ Petition No. 2365 of 
H 1988 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana for quashing the detention 
420 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SUKHPAL SINGH 
421 
order contending inter-alia that the order of detention was passed on 
28.5.88 in a cursory and routine manne< without application of mind, 
much less with subjective satisfaction and there was an inordinate delay 
of two months in consideration of detenu's representation and that the 
detention was confirmed without affording the detenu any chance of 
' appearing and producing witnesses before the Advisory Board in terms 
of orders of the High Court dated 27.9.88 made in Crl. Writ Petition 
No. 1393 of 1988. 
The High Court upheld the above contention of the petitioner and 
accordingly quashed the order of detention and ordered the detenu to 
be set at liberty Corwith unless required in any other case. 
Aggrieved hy this order the State has come up before this Court 
by way· of special leave. The Court while dismissing the appeal and 
directing the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith as ordered by the High 
Court. 
HELD: A clear distinction has to be drawn between preventive 
detention in which anticipatory and precauiionary- action is taken to 
prevent the recurrence of apprehended events, and punitive detention 
under which the action is taken after the event has already hal'Jlened. It 
' is true that the ordinary criminal process of trial is not to be cir-
cumvented and short circuited by apparently handy and easier resort to 
11reventive detention. But the possibility of launching a criminal pro-
secution cannot be said to be an, absolute bar to an order of preventive 
detention. Nor would it be correct to say that if such possibility is not 
present in the mind of the detaining authority the order of detention 
would necessarily be bad. i426C-E] 
It is true that the Advisory Board is not a judicial body. It is 
charged with the responsibility of advising the Executive Government. 
But when it advises in favour of the detenu, namely that there was no 
sufficient cause for detention, it would be binding upon the Govt. under 
section 12(2) of the Act to release the detenu forthwith. [439F] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Expressing inability to appear once could not have been treated as 
G 
the detenu's not desiring to be heard under section 2(2) of the Act. ln 
fact he desired to be heard and to produce his witnesses. [439Gl 
The protection of personal liberty is largely through insistence on 
observance o

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