UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus MANISH BAHAL @ NISHU

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 810 · Decided: 09-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
MANISH BAHAL@ NISHU 
JULY 9, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND RUMA PAL; JJ.] 
National Security Act, 1980-S.3(2) and (4) Preventive Detention-
Representation by detenu-AdvisOI)' Board-Submission of report-Detaining 
C authority on consideration of said report and other materials, confirming the 
order of detention-On challenge, High Court quashing the detention order 
holding that there was no independent consideration of representation-
Validity of-Held, merely because report of Advisory Board was also placed 
before the authority along with other materials, it cannot be held that there 
was no independent consideration of representation by the authority-Thus, 
D Order of High Court unsustainable. 
Constitution of India, 1950-:-Article 22(4) and (5)-Preventive 
Detention -Representation by detenu-Consideration of-Held, there should 
be prompt and exped_itious consideration of representation_ by authority. 
' 
E 
Respondent was detained under Section 3(2) of th'e National Securi~y 
F 
G 
H 
Act, 1980. Respondent-detenu made a representation to the Advisory Board 
which submitted its report. Thereafter the detaining authority i.e. the Lt. 
Governor on consideration of the said report alongwith other materials placed 
on record confirmed the order of detention and rejected the representation of 
respondent. Aggrieved, respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. 
High Court quashed the detention order holding that there was no independent 
consideration of the representation by the Lt. Governor. Hence the present 
appeal 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. High Court was not justified in quashing the detention order 
of respondent holding that the order of the Lt. Governor rejecting the 
representation of the detenu was not based on independent consideration. 
1820-BI 
1.2. In view of Article 22(4) and (5) of the Constitution, 
' 
810 
\ 
\ 
~--
U.0.1. 1·. MANISH BAHAL [MOHi\l'ATRA. J.] 
81 I 
State Government should promptly consider and expeditiously dispose A. 
of the representation of the detenu. In the instant case, merely because the 
report of the Advisory Board was placed before the detaining Authority (Lt. 
Governor) along with other papers for disposal of the representation made by 
the detenu it cannot be held that there was no independent consideration of 
the same by the authority. High Court has not recorded any finding that there 
was delay or callousness or bureaucratic lethargy on the part of the State B 
Government in dealing with the representation of the respondent or that the 
Lt. Governor had kept the represertiation submitted before him awaiting the 
report of the Advisory Board. No finding is also recorded by the High Court 
. ..-
that the Lt. Governor solely depended on or relied upon the report of the 
Advisory Board for passing the order rejecting the representation. It has also C 
not been found that the report of the Advisory Board was the only material 
placed before the Lt. Governor while submitting the representation for his 
consideration. 1819-E-F-H; 820-A-BI 
KM. Abdulla Kunhi and B.l. Abdul Khader v. Union of India andOrs., 
1199111SCC476; Ram Sukrya Mhatre v. R.D. Tyagi, 119921Supp.3 SCC 65 D 
and Abdul Salam & Thiyyan v. Union of India 11990) 3 SCC 15. Moosa Husein 
Sanghar v. State of Gujarat and Ors. 11993) 1 SCC 511; Navalshankar 
/shwarlal Dave and anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. 119931Supp.3 SCC 754 
and Smt. Gracy v. State of Kera/a, ( 1991) 2 SCC 1, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 670 E 
of2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.1999 of the Delhi High Court 
in Crl. W.P. No. 809 of 1999. 
Ashok Bhan, S. Wasim, A. Quadri and D.S. Mahra for the Appellants. F 
Harjinder Singh, Naveen Malhotra and Ms. Vandana Sharma for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
O.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted. 
The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, the 
Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi, the Commissioner of Police, Lelhi and the 
Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, have filed this appeal assailing the judgment 
G 
of the Delhi High Court dated 14th December, 1999 in Criminal Writ Petition H 
812 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A No. 809 of 1999 quashing the order of detention in under section 3(2) of the 
"National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and directing 
immediate release of the respondent unless required in connection
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.