LexSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus ZAVAD ZAMA KHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. .
)
789
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
v.
ZAVAD ZAMA KHAN
May4, 1984
'.(D.A. DESAI, A.P. SEN AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.]
Pub/« Safety Laws-Natianal Security Act (Act XLV of 1980), Section 14-
Revocation of orders of detention-Due compliance with requirements of section
8(1) read with Article 22(5) of the Constitution though con1plied with, subsequent
representation for revocation to Prime Minister made through the counsel filed by
t'ie Central Government-Whether non-passing of any order on the revocation
representation vitiates the detention.
The facts are that the respondent made a represenation dated June 18, 1983
a~ainst an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Morada bad
dated Noven1ber 6, 1982 for his detention under sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the National
Security Act, 1980, and the same was duly forwarded by the District Magistrate
to the Advisory Board on June 21, 1983. The State Government had in the
mean while on June 13, 1983 made a reference to the Advisory Board under s- 10
of the Act i.e. within three weeks from the date of det~ntion together with the
order of detention and the grounds therefor for its opinion. On June 23, 1983
the representation was examined by the Joint Secretary, Home Department who
marked the file to the Home Secretary on June 27, 1983 who on his turn placed
the file before the Chief Minister for his comments on June 27, 1983. The Chief
Minister tooA. to daysto study the file and ultimately passed an order rejec-
ting the representation. On July 2, 1983 the Stat_e Government forwarded
the representation made together with the commen~s to the Government of India
and the Central"Government rejected the same on July 19, 1983.
It appears th<it on July 5, 1983 the respondent through his counsel simulta-
neously addressed two representations for revocation-of his detention under s. 14
of the Act, one ad(ressed to the Prime Minister of India and the other to the Slate
Government. The representation made to the Central Government addressed
in the name of the Prime Minister was received in the Prime Minister's
Secretariat on July 7, 1983 and the grievance of the respondent before the High
C~ourt was that the Central Government h<id not dealt with his application for the
revocation of the order of detention under s.14 of the Act. The l-ligh Court obser~
ved that the right of the detenu to make a representation to.the Central Government
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
for r .... vocation of the order of detention unde_r s. 14 of Act was intended to be an
additional ch{'C1< or safeguard against the improper exercise of its power of
H
detention by the detaining authority or the State Governfnent and therefore the
failure on the part of the Central Government to consider the same was tanta-
mount 10 a denial of the consitutional safesuard as contemplated by Art. 22(5)
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1984] 3 S~C.R.
A
of·the Consti'.ution. It accordingly held the continued detention of the respon·
dent to be illegal.
B
c
D
E
G
H
.
Aggrieved by the Order, the State preferred an Special Leave.
Aile wing the appeal, the Court,
•
HELD : (1) The constitutional imperatives of Art. 22(5) enjoin that where
a detenu simultaneously makes representation to the detaining authority as well
as an application under s. 14 of the Act, they must not be dealt with by the
appropriate Government at the same tin1e and there was no question of any
conflict of jurisdiction. If the Central Government were to revoke the order of
detention under s. 14 of the Act, there would be no representation for the State
Governn1ent to consider, or refer to the Advisory Board under s. 8(b) of the Act
nor will th~re arise any question of Advisory Board making a report to it, or on
receipt of such a report, confirming the order of detention under section 8(f).
The other type of cases can be where notwithstanding that the order of detention
has been confinned under s. S(f) the appropriate Government may, at any time,
revoke the same under s. 14. The power of revocation conferred on the appro~
priate Government un<ler s. 14 is independent of the power of confirming or
setting aside an order of detention under s. S(f) [795H ; 796A-D]
2. The pO\\'Cr of revocation conferred on the Central Government under
s. 14 of the Act is a statutory power which may be exercised on information
reCeived by the Central Governn1ent from its own sources including that supplied
by the State Gov:::Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.