STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. versus SHAMSHER SINGH

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 83 · Decided: 01-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
83 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 
v. 
SHAMSHER SINGH 
May I, 1985 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.] 
Constitution of/ndia 1956, Article 22-Personal freedom-An invaluable 
treasure-Not to be curtailed beyond necessity. 
A 
B 
National Security Act 1980 Sections JO and 11(2). Advisory Board-Delay 
of one day in placing the representation of detenu before Board-Non·consideration 
C 
of documentary evidence pruduced by detenu before Board-Entire record of 
Board not forwarded to State Govern1nent-lntelligence reports relied upon by 
State not supplied to detenu-Order of detention-Whether vitiated. 
The respondent, an Advocate, was ordered to be detained by the State 
Government under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1950. He was 
• D 
taken into custody and detained. The grounds of detention were supplied to 
him when he was detained. 
The respondent challenged 
his 
detention 
in the 
High 
Court. 
The 
High Court 
foulld : 
(1) that the representation 
of the detenu-
respondent had not been placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks 
as required by s. 10 of the Act and such violation vitiated the continued 
detention of the respondent, (2) that the Advisory Board had not considered 
the documentary evidence produced by the detenu and therefore the opinion 
formed by the Board that the respondent should be detained was not an appro.. 
priate one. (3) that the materials in the record which had been considered by 
the Advisory Board in formulating its recom1nendation to the State Government 
had not been transmitted to the Government, and the same was not available 
before the State Government, when it made the order of confirmation, 
(4) that the contents of the intelligence reports referred to in the grounds of 
d~tention had not been supplied to the detenu and he had, therefore, been 
deprived of the opportunity of making an effective representation against his 
detention. The High Court consequently held that the detention of the 
respondent cannot be upheld, and directed the order of detention directing him 
to be detained for one year be quashed. 
E 
F 
G 
In the appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the State-
appe!lant, that the four grounds accepted by the High Court in quashing the 
detention was wrong and not sustainable as a ground for such quashing. It 
was further contended that as a fact there had been compliance of s. 10 of 
the Act within a week of commencement of the detention and as by then no 
H 
representation from the respondent had been received, the same could not be 
placed before the Boa;d along with the grounds of detention. The respondent 
js a pra~tisjng advocate and must have therefore properly placed his points 
A 
B 
c 
D-
E 
84 
SUPREME COURT REp0RTS 
(1958] SUPPL. s.c.R. 
before the Advisory Board. As the Board had not been sent the entire records, 
all the records were not available for the consideration of the State Government 
at the time of confirmation of the detention. The respondent had actually 
been given in the grounds all the material details necessary for makina an 
effective representation. 
Allowing the Appeal, 
HELD: !(a) While making of the reference under s. 10 with the 
grounds of detention is a must, furnishing of the representation is conditional 
upon it having been made and receipt thereof by the appropriate Government. 
Though under tbe general scheme of the Act definite and different periods 
have been prescribed for compliance with the step to step treatment of the 
matter, there is no obligation cast on the detenu to make a representation 
within any definite time. [91 H; 92 A] 
(b) The procedure or the Advisory Board contained in S, 11 Of the 
Act indicates that the Board is to consider the materials placed before it and 
is entitled to call for such info1rnation as it may deem necessary from the 
appropriate Government or from any other person concerned and after hearing 
the dcteou, if be wants to be heard in person, has to report to the appropriate 
Government within seven weeks from the date of detention. [92 D-E] 
(c) The legislative scheme in fixing the limit of three weeks ins. 10 and 
the further limit of seven weeks ins. 11, allows at least four weeks' time to the 
Board to deal with the matter. [92 E] 
(d) It is obligatory for the appropriate Government to forward the 
representation, when received, to the Board without delay because unless on 
the basis of the representation the appropriate Government res

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