THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC (LAW AND ORDER-F) AND ANOTHER. versus NABILA AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [2014] 12 S.C.R. 405 · Decided: 09-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014) 12 S.C.R. 405 
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, 
PUBLIC (LAW 
AND ORDER-F) AND ANOTHER. 
v. 
NABILA AND ANOTHER. 
(Crimnal Appeal No. 2545 of 2014) 
DECEMBER 09, 2014 
[M.Y. EQBAL AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
National Security Act, 1980: s.3(1)(a) - Preventive 
detention -
Order of detention primarily based on the C 
confession!J/ statement leading to seizure of incriminating 
articles containing official secrets relating to Indian Defence 
Forces - Habeas Corpus petition by wife of detenu on the 
ground that the detenu was detained on a solitary ground case 
and sponsoring authority has failed to place any material D 
before the detaining authority to show that either the detenu 
- himself or his relatives have filed bail application - High 
Court setting aside the order of detention - Held: The detenu 
was taken into custody in September, 2012, and the order of 
detention was passed in December, 2012 - The said order E 
of detention was finally quashed by the High. Court .in April 
2013 - Apparently, therefore, a long time lapsed inasmuch 
as the period of detention fixed in the order of detention 
already expired in April, 2014 - The aetenu shall not be taken 
into custody for serving the remaining period of detention 
F 
unless there still exist materials to the satisfaction of the 
detaining authority for putting him under detention - In the 
facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is 
set aside - However, initial detention. order having been 
· expired long back, it is for the detaining authority to take a G 
decision in accordance with law - Constitution of India, 1950 
- Article 21. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
. 405 
H 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1. Indisputably; the object of law of preventive 
detention is not punitive, but only preventive. In case of 
preventive detention, no offence is to be proved nor is 
any charge formulated. The justification of such detention 
is suspicion and reasonability and there is no criminal 
B conviction which can only. be warranted by legal 
evidence. However, the detaining authority must keep in 
mind while passing the order of detention the civil and 
·constitutional right granted to every citizen by Article 21 
of the Constitution of India inasmuch as no person. shall 
c be deprived of life and liberty except in accordance with· 
the procedure established by law. The laws of Preventive 
Detention are to be strictly construed and the procedure 
provided must be meticulously complied with. [Para 13] 
[412-B-D] 
D 
2. In the instant case, the High Court quashed the 
order of detention mainly on the ground that the detenu 
was in remand in. connection with the solitary ground 
· case when there was no material before the detaining 
authority to show that either the detenu himself or his 
E 
relatives are taking steps to file application for bail in the 
solitary·ground case. The view taken by the High Court 
while passing the impugned order cannot be sustained 
in law. Admittedly, the detenu was confined in jail since 
16.9.2012. The detention order was passed on 5.12.2012, 
F 
after about.three months from the date of arrest, and the 
said order of detention was finally quashed by the High 
Court by passing the impugned order on 26.4.2013. 
Apparently, therefore, a long time has lapsed inasmuch 
as the period of detention fixed in the order of detention 
G has already expired in Aprii, 2014. Even if the impugned 
order passed by the High Court is set aside, the detenu 
cannot and shall not be taken into custody for serving 
the remaining period of detention unless there still exist 
materials to the satisfaction of the detaining authority for 
H putting him under detention. In other words, initial 
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, 
PUBLIC (LAW 
407 
AND ORDER-F) v. NABILA 
detention order having been expired long back, it is for A 
the detaining authority to take a decision in accordance 
with law. [Paras 14, 19, 21] [419-E~F; •18-C-D; 422-G-H; 
423-A] 
Shiv Ratan Makim v. Union of l,1dia 1985 (3) Suppl. 
8 
SCR 843: (1986) 1 SCC 404; Union of India & Anr. v. Chhaya 
Ghosal & Anr. (2004).10 SCC 97; Haradhan Saha v. State 
of West Bengal and Ors. 1975 (1) SCR 778: (1975) 3 SCC 
198; Ahmad Nssar v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 1999 (3) 
Suppl. SCR 657: (1999) 8 SCC 473; Baby Devassy Chul/y C 
v. Union of India & Ors. 2012 (9) SCR 515 : (2013) 4 SCC 
531; Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union oflndia & Ors. 2000 (1) 
SCR 945: (2000) 3 SCC 

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