UNION OF INDIA versus YUMNAM ANAND M. @BOCHA @ KORA @ SURAJ AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 60 · Decided: 12-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA 
( 
v. 
YUMNAM ANAND M. @SOCHA @ KORA @ SURAJ AND ANR. 
APRIL 12, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJ!TPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Preventive Detention: 
/ 
c 
Detenu making representation against order of detention-Considering 
authority justified in obtaining views of sponsoring authority before disposal 
.of the representation-National Security Act, 1980-s.3(3). 
Representation by detenu against detention-Considering Authority to 
deal with same with utmost expedition and in its right perspective keeping 
D 
in view the fact that the detention is based on subjective satisfaction of the 
authority concerned, and any infringement of the constitutional right conferred 
under Art.22(5) invalidates the detention order-Obligation of the detaining 
authority to show that the detention order meticulously accords with the 
procedure established by law-Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/es 22(5) 
& 21. 
E 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ of habeas corpus-Is a 
writ of right which is grantable ex debito justitae, but is not a writ of course-
The applicant must show a Prima facie case of his unlawful detention-
... 
Preventive Detention. 
F 
An order of detention was served on Respondent no. 1 in exercise of 
l-
powers conferred under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 read 
with the Home Department's Order No. 17(1)/49/80-S(pt) dated 31.05.2005. 
The detention was approved by the State Governor. Detenu made 
representation before the Ministry of Home Affairs which immediately called 
G 
for parawise comments from the sponsoring authority. The comments were 
received whereafter the representation was rejected. Detenu filed writ petition 
... 
before High Court for quashing of the order of detention contending that there 
..... 
was unexplained delay in disposing of his representation. A counter affidavit 
was filed explaining that some time was taken to obtain the view of the 
sponsoring ai.ihority. High Court held that the views of the Sponsoring 
H 
60 
U.0.1. v. YUMNAM ANAND M. @BOCHA@KORA@SURAJ 
6J 
Authority were not necessary to be taken and therefore the delay in disposing A 
of the representation had not been properly explained. Accordingly the order 
of detention was quashed. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The question as to whether there was delay in disposal of the B 
representation has to be considered in the background of Article 22(5) of the 
Constitution. A constitutional protection is given to every detenu which 
mandates the grant of liberty to the detenu to make a representation against 
detention, as imperated in Article 22(5) of the Constitution. It also imperates 
the authority to whom the representation is addressed to deal with the same C 
with utmost expedition. The representation is to he considered in its right 
perspective keeping in view the fact that the detention of the detenu is based 
on subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned, and infringement of the 
constitutional right conferred under Article 22(5) invalidates the detention 
order. Personal liberty prote.cted under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so 
high in the scale of constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining D 
authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the 
procedure•established by law. (Para 6] (64-A-C] 
Thomas Pacham Dales' case (1881) 6 QBD 376, referred to. 
2. Article 21 of the Constitution having declared that no person shall E 
be deprived of life and liberty except in accordance with the procedure 
established by law, a machinery was definitely needed to examine the question 
of illegal detention with utmost promptitude. The writ of habeas corpus is a 
device of this nature. The writ has been described as a writ of right which is 
grantable ex debito j ustitae. Though a writ of right, it is not a writ of course. 
The applicant must show a Primafacie case of his unlawful detention. 
F 
(Para 7] (64-F( 
3. In case of preventive detention no offence is proved, nor any charge 
is formulated and the justification of such detention is suspicion or 
reasonability and there is no criminal conviction which can only be warranted G 
by legal evidence. Preventive justice requires an action to be taken to prevent 
apprehended objectionable activities. But at the same time, a person's greatest 
of human freedoms, i.e., personal liberty is deprived, and, therefore, the laws 
of preventive detention are strict

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