UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus LAISHRAM LINCOLA SINGH @ NICOLAI

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 270 · Decided: 24-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 5 S.C.R. 270 
A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
...... 
v. 
'!>-
LAISHRAM LINCOLA SINGH @ NICOLAI 
(Criminal App1eal No. 519 of 2008) 
B 
MARCH 24, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
..;. 
Preventive Detention - Detention under National 
Security Act- Writ Petition challenging detention on the ground 
c of delay in disposal of repn9sentation of detenu - High Court 
issu;ng writ of Habeas Corpus - On appeal, held: In the facts 
of the case, order of High Court unsustainable - Constitution 
of lnd;a, 1950 -Article 226 - Nat;onal Security Act- s. 3 (3). 
Detention order was passed against the respondent 
D in exercise of powers cionferred uls 3 (3) of National 
Security Act. The period of detention was fixed for 12 
)' 
years. Respondent filed writ petition seeking writ of 
' . 
Habeas Corpus against the detention order primarily on 
the ground that there was unexplained delay in disposing 
E of the representation made by the detenu. High Court 
allowed thei petition accepting the plea of delay. 
In appeal to this court appellant-State contended that 
there was no delay in disposing of the representation. 
F 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: In the facts of lthe case, the order of the High 
Court is unsustainable. The period of detention fixed by 
the order 4Df detention being over, it is open to the 
detaining authority to consider whether there is any need 
G for detaining the respondent as the situation stands now. 
[Para 8] [275-F, G] 
Senthamilselvi v. State of TN. and Anr. 2006 (5) SCC 
676; Vinod K. Chawla v. Union of lnd;a and Ors. 2006 (7) SCC 
: 
H 
270 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. LAISHRAM LINCOLA 
271 
SINGH@ NICOLAI [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
-+ 
337 - referred to. 
A 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 519 of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2006 of 
the High Court of Gauhati, Gauhati in W.P. (Crl.) No. 53 of 2005. 
B 
' "-
Vikas Singh, ASG, Abha R. Sharma and Sushma Suri for 
the Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
c 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the 
Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court, Imphal Bench 
ailowing the habeas corpus petition filed by the respondent. The 
habeas corpus petition was filed questioning the order of D 
... 
detention passed by the District Magistrate, Manipur, Imphal 
~· . 
West, dated 23.9.2005 in exercise of powers conferred by sub-
section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (in 
short the 'Act') read with Home Department's order No.17(1 )/ 
49/80-H(Pt) dated 6.9.2005, which was approved by the State 
E 
Government under order No.17(1 )/947/2005-H dated 5.10.2005 
and again confirmed by order of State Government being 
No.17(1)/947/2005-H dated 7.11.2005 fixing the period of 
detention for 12 months from the date of detention. The order of 
,~tention was challenged primarily on the ground that there was 
F 
unexplained delay in disposing of the representation made by 
the detenu. The High Court accepted the plea that there was an 
unexplained delay. 
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the 
representation was made on 12.10.2005 and the Central G 
Government received the same on 31.10.2005. It immediately 
wrote to the State Government to give its parawise comments. 
Such comments were received on 22.11.2005 and immediately 
thereafter after consideration of all relevant aspects the order 
of rejection was passed on 29.11.2005 which was H 
272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A communicated to the detenu on 30.11.2005. 
4. It was submitted that the High Court did not even 
consider thE~ explanation given by the appellants to show that 
there was, in fact, no delay. No reason has been indicated by 
the High Court in the impugned order to show any application 
B of mind to the relevant aspect. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
5. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent. 
6. In Senthamilselvi v. State of TN. and Anr. (2006 (5) 
sec 676) it was held as under: 
"6. Corning to the plea that there was delay in disposal of 
the representation it is to be noted that the order of 
detention is dated 1.12.2005. The representation was sent 
on 11.12.2005 which was received by the respondents on 
15.12.2005. The details were called for on 16.12.2005 
which were received on 20.12.2005. The file was 
submitted on 21.12.2005 and dealt with by the Under 
Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 22.12.2005. The 
concern
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.