THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. versus TALIB KHAN AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 742 · Decided: 24-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. 
v. 
TALia KHAN AND ORS. ETC. 
i OCTOBER 24, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND 
G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
National Secwity Act, 1980 : 
C 
Sections 3, 8--1.>etention-Non-supply .of exceptional circumstances 
and reasons recorded for non-supply of grounds of detention before the expiry 
of five days but within the outer limit of ten days-Whether vitiates the order 
of detention-Held: No-High Cowt not justified in law in holding that non-
communication of the ground of exceptional circumstances as reasons 
recorded by the Magistrate, vitiated the order of detention-Constitution of 
D India-Art. 22(5). 
A.K Roy v. Unioa of India & Ors., (1982] 1 SCC 271 = (1983] 1 SCR 
540, followed. 
Ibrahim Ahmad Batti v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [1983] 1 SCR 
E 540 = [19821 3 sec 440, overruled. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 419-31 of 1987 Etc. 
·From the Judgment and Order dated 9.6.87 of the Rajasthan High 
F 
Court in D.B.C. Habeas Corpus P. Nos. 831, 909, 919, 920-25, 966, 1030, 
1037 and 1177 of 1987 
K.S. Bhati for the Appellants. 
Sushi! Kumar Jain, A.P. Dhamija, Surya Kant and M.K. Singh for the 
G Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Pursuant to the order of this Court dated August 21, 1987 doubting 
the correctness of Ibrahim Ahmad Batti v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [1983] 
H 1 SCR 540 = [1982] 3 SCC 440, the case has been referred to this Bench. 
742 
STATEv. TAUB KHAN 
743 
These appeals by special leave arise from the Division Bench judg-
A 
ment of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Writ Petition Nos. 
--
831/87 and batch. 
The facts are that the respondents were detained under Section 3(1) 
of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short, the 'Act'), by proceedings of B 
the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer dated January 7, 1987. The exceptional 
circumstances were recorded on January 11, 1987 for non-supply of the 
grounds and documents to the detenu. The grounds of detention with the 
material were supplied on January 16, 1987. the detenu made his repre-
sentation on January 20, 1987 to the State Government which was rejected 
on February 2, 1987. He made a representation to the Advisory Board on c 
February 9, 1987 and it was considered and rejected on February 19, 1987. 
The State Government confirmed the order of detention on March 13, 1987 
for a period of one year w.e.f. January 7, 1987. When the orders of 
detention were challenged, primarily on the ground that the exceptional 
circumstances and the reasons recorded by the District Magistrate were D 
not communicated t0 the detenu, the order of detention was held violative 
of Article 22(5) and the High Court by the impugned order dated June 9, 
1987 enlarged the respondents from detention. It is not necessary to go into 
the other grounds since the reference is on the correctness of the view 
taken by a Bench of two Judges of this Court in Batti's case. 
E 
It is contended by Shri K.S. Bhati, Advocate on behalf of the appel-
!ant, that after thorough preparation and analysis of facts, the view taken 
by the High Court and this Court in Batti's casi; is not correct in law. The 
objects and reasons of the Act disclose the gravity under which detention 
could be resorted to. Section 3 and Section 8 of the Act are to be read F 
together. The detaining authority, if satisfied with respect to any person 
that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial 
to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order or of 
supplies and services essential to the community, it is necessary so to do, 
may pass an order directing that he be detained. In case the order is not G 
not communicated to the detenu within five days as envisaged in Section 
8(1), the detaining authority is required to record reasons for and the 
-i 
exceptional circumstances under which order could not be communicated 
to the detenue, and to serve the grounds of detention within 10 days from 
the date of the order of detention. In this case reasons have been recorded. 
It is not a condition that exceptional circumstances or reasons need be H 
744 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention. The view taken 
in Batti's case is not correct in law. It is contended by the learned counsel 
for the respondents, Shri Sushi! Kumar Jain, that the view of this Court in 
Batti's case followed by that of the High Court is cor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.