Summary
The Court quashed preventive detention under the National Security Act and its extensions because the State unjustifiably delayed deciding the detenu’s representation and neither government proved timely communication of its rejection. Government consideration was independent of Advisory Board review and could not await that process. The Court decided the appeal on these procedural safeguards, leaving other challenges to the detention and the underlying allegations unexamined.
Issues
- Whether delay in deciding the first representation and failure to communicate its rejection violated preventive-detention safeguards.
- Whether awaiting the Advisory Board justified the State’s delay and whether the extensions could survive.
Provisions considered
- Article 22(5), Constitution of IndiaThe right to an early representation required expeditious independent consideration and timely communication of its outcome. (¶¶ 18, 21, 22, 33, 34, 35, 36, 45, 46, 49, 54)
- Section 8, National Security Act, 1980The statutory safeguard for representation was defeated by unexplained delay in its disposal and communication. (¶¶ 24, 32, 33, 45, 46)
- Sections 10, 12 and 14, National Security Act, 1980Advisory Board review and government revocation powers did not replace independent and prompt government consideration of the representation. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 36, 39, 40)
Held
- Communication of grounds and the earliest opportunity to represent would be ineffective without prompt consideration and communication of the decision. Government consideration was qualitatively different from the Advisory Board’s examination and had to proceed independently, without waiting for its report. (¶¶ 21, 22, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 45)
- The State offered no reasonable explanation for waiting for the Advisory Board and then taking another month before the asserted rejection on 15 July 2021 of the 18 May representation. That unexplained delay violated the detenu’s statutory and constitutional rights. Expedition was essential, though the precedents did not impose an inflexible formula invalidating every slight explained delay. (¶¶ 35, 37, 38, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 51)
- Neither government established timely communication of rejection to the detenu. The Central Government’s wireless direction to serve the decision was unsupported by the requested acknowledgement. Even the outcome had not been communicated, distinguishing the precedent about whether the competent authority’s full order itself must be supplied. (¶¶ 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54)
- The detention failed on the State’s unexplained decisional delay and both governments’ failure of timely communication. Consequential extensions fell with the original order. Other substantive challenges to detention did not require decision. (¶¶ 55, 56)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment, detention order dated 11 May 2021 and extensions dated 15 July and 30 September 2021 quashed. Other grounds not examined; pending applications disposed of.