YUMMAN ONGBI LEMBI LEIMA versus STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 04-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR, S.S. NIJJAR, JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 1 S.C.R. 1 
YUMMAN ONGBI LEMBI LEIMA 
v. 
STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2012) 
JANUARY 4, 2012 
[ALTAMAS KABIR, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND 
J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980: 
s.3(4) - Order of detention - Held: An individual incident 
of an offence under the Indian Penal Code, however heinous, 
A 
B 
c 
is insufficient to make out a case for issuance of an order of 
preventive detention - In the instant case, the grounds of 
detention do not disclose any material which was before the 
detaining authority, other than the fact that there was every D 
likelihood of the detenu being released on bail in connection 
with the case in respect of which he had been arrested - The 
power is required to be exercised with due caution as well as 
upon a proper appreciation of the facts as to whether the acts 
are in any way prejudicial to the interest and the security of E 
the State and its citizens, or seek to disturb public law and 
order, warranting the issuance of such an order -The detaining 
authority acted rather casually in the matter in issuing the 
order of detention and the High Court also appears to have 
missed the right to liberty as contained in Article 21 of the F 
Constitution and Article 22(2) thereof, as well as the 
provisions of s.167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
- The order of detention is quashed - Constitution of India, 
1950 - Articles 21 and 22 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
- s.167. 
G 
The appellant's husband, who had been earlier 
arrested and released on bail in connection with offences 
punishable under Indian Penal Code and Unlawful 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 1 S.C.R. 
A Activities (Prevention) Act (the last such case being of the 
year 1998) was, on 31.1.2011, remanded to police custody 
in connection with the murder of the then Chairman of 
the Board of Secondary Education. He was served with 
a detention order dated 31.1.2011 issued by the District 
B Magistrate under the National Security Act, 1980. The 
order was confirmed by the Governor fixing the period 
of detention for 12 months. The writ petition challenging 
the detention order on behalf of the detenu having been 
dismissed, the instant appeal was filed. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The extra-ordinary powers of detaining an 
individual in contravention of the provisions of Article 
22(2) of the Constitution was not warranted in the instant 
0 case, where the grounds of detention do not disclose any 
material which was before the detaining authority, other 
than the fact that there was every likelihood of the detenu 
being released on bail in connection with the cases in 
respect of which he had been arrested, to support the 
E order of detention. [Para 13) [10-D-E] 
1.2. When the courts thought it fit to release the 
detenu on bail in connection with the cases in respect of 
which he had been arrested, the mere apprehension that 
he was likely to be released on bail as a ground of his 
F detention, is not justified. Besides, the FIRs in respect of 
which the detenu had been arrested relate to the years 
1994, 1995 and 1998 respectively, whereas the order of 
detention was passed against him, almost 12 years after 
the last FIR. There is no live link between the earlier 
G incidents and the incident in respect of which the 
detention order was passed. [Para 14) [10-G-H; 11-A-B] 
1.3. Article 21 of the Constitution enjoins that no 
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty 
except, according to procedure established by law. In the 
H instant case, although the power is vested with the 
YUMMAN ONGBI LEMBI LEIMA v. STATE OF 
3 
MANIPUR & ORS. 
authorities concerned, unless the same is invoked and 
A 
implemented in a justifiable manner, such action of the 
detaining authority cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, 
such a detention order is an exception to the provisions 
of Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution. The power is 
required to be exercised with due caution as well as upon s 
a proper appreciation of the facts as to whether such acts 
are in any way prejudicial to the interest and the security 
of the State and its citizens, or seek to disturb public law 
and order, warranting the issuance of such an order. An 
individual incident of an offence under the Indian Penal C 
Code, however heinous, is insufficient to make out a case 
for issuance of an order of preventive detention. [Para 13 
and 15] (10-F; 11.C-D] 
1.4. The detai

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