Holding

The order of detention is invalid and is quashed because Section 8(1) of the National Security Act was violated.

Summary

The petitioner, H.L. Bhandari, was detained under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 on 25 September 1986 and served with the detention order on 29 September 1986. A habeas corpus petition was filed and the Bombay High Court stayed the detention, but the stay could not be served before the petitioner was flown to Delhi. He was released on bail on 2 October 1986, yet the grounds of detention were only communicated to him on 14 October 1986, well beyond the statutory period of five days (or fifteen days in exceptional circumstances). The respondents argued that the delay should be condoned because the petitioner was no longer in custody, but no record of reasons for the delay was produced. The Supreme Court held that Section 8(1) of the National Security Act imposes a mandatory duty to communicate the grounds within five days, extendable only with recorded reasons, and that failure to comply renders the detention order invalid. Consequently, the Court quashed the order of detention and allowed the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the failure to communicate the grounds of detention within the period prescribed by Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980, without recorded reasons, invalidates the detention order.

Legislation cited

National Security Act, 1980s. 8(1)

Subjects

National Security Actdetentiongrounds of detentionSection 8mandatory compliancehabeas corpusbailArticle 32fundamental rightsprocedural safeguards

Judgment

HEM LALL BHANDARI
A v.
STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS
'l j

JANUARY 28, 1987 •
B [0. CHINNAPPA REDDY & V. KHALID, JJ.]
•
National Security Act 198()-s.8(1) Detenu-Necessity for com-
munication of grounds of detention within 5 days of making order- ~-
Detaining authority to record reasons why grounds of detention could
not be communicated within five days.
-l_
c The Order of detention of the petitioner under s.3 of the National
Security Act, 1980 was made on 25.9.1986 and the grounds of detention
were prepared on the same date. The petitioner was detained and
'y·
served with the detention order on 29.9.1986 at 10.15 P.M. In a habeas
corpus petition filed on behalf of the petitioner on 30.9.1986 the High
D Court passed an order at 7.30 P.M. staying the detention order. How-
ever, the stay order could not be served on the detaining officer as the
plane carrying the petitioner left Bombay for Delhi at 8.30 P.M. The
detaining officers were informed of the order of the High Court on
1. 10. 1986 at S P .M. On the same day a petition was filed in this Court
and at 3.30 P.M. this Court passed an order directing that the peti-
).
E tioner shall not be taken out of Delhi. On 2. 10. 1986 the petitioner was
released on bail by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. On
14. 10. 1986 the petitioner w:os served with grounds of detention.
....
On behalf of the petitiioner it was contended that the delay caused
in serving the grounds of d1!tention from 2. 10.196 to 14.10.1986 clearly
F violates the mandatory re11uirements, contained in s.8( 1) of the Act r
and, therefore, the order of detention was liable to be quashed.

On bahalf of the respondents. it was contended: (1) that the
petitioner made all efforts of the police officer to serve the grounds of
detention futile by taking advantage of the orders of the High Court and
G this Court, and (2) that th1e delay in communicating the grounds of
detention caused in this caBe should be condoned and rigour of the
section relaxed since the detenu had been released on 2. 10. 1986, and
y·
hence not in detention.

H
Allowing the petition, 1
.
78
H.L. BHANDARI v. STATE OF SIKKIM 79

HELD: ( 1) Section 8( 1) of the Act shows that it is obligatory on A
the detaining officer to communicate to the detenu, the grounds on
which the order of detention has h""n made. This has to be done as soon
as possible and ordinarily not later than 5 days. The limitation of 5 days
can be exceeded in exceptional circumstances. The grounds of detention
under exceptional circumstances can be communicated to the detenu B
within a period not later than 15 days from the date of detention but
when the detaining authority takes time longer than 5 days he has to
record reasons why the grounds of detention could not be communi-
cated within 5 days.

(2) The mandate enacted in the section is a safety valve for a
citizen who is robbed of his liberty from manipulating the grounds of C
detention. The section has to be interpreted literally. No relaxation is
permissible. If the original time of 5 days is to be extended, such exten-
sion must be supported by an order recording reasons. If reasons are
not so recorded the order of detention will automatically fail. Even if
reasons are recorded they have to inspire confidence in the Con.rt and
0
are subject to legal scrutiny. If the reasons are unsatisfactory, Courts
will still quash the order of detention.

(3) In the instant case, the grounds of detention were communi-
cated to the petitioner long after 10 days. There is no record evidencing
any reason for this long delay. The contention that the delay in com-
E
municating the grounds of detention caused in this case has to be con-
doned and the rigour of the section relaxed since the detenu had been
released on 2. 10. 1986, anl\ hence not in detention, is a specious plea
which cannot stand legal scrutiny. If this contention is to be extended to
its logical conclusion it would be clothing the authorities with powers to
delay communication of the grounds of detention indefinitely, whenever
F
a detenu secures from a Court of law either bail or parole. To accept
this contention would be to destroy the effect of the mandate of the
section.

(4) In the case there is no acceptable or satisfactory explanation
as to what the officer or the officers did after 6. 10. 1986. This inaction G
after 6. 10. 1986 till 14. 10. 1986, by itself is sufficient to hold that s.8( I)
'\
I
has been violated by the officer concerned. The order of detention is
bad and, therefore, quashed.

(5) It is not necessary in all cases to call upon persons placed in
high positions to controvert allegations made against them by filing H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

affidavits unless the allegations are specific, pointed and necessary to be
A
controverted.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Original) No. 567
of 1986.

Jl (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

Dr. Raxna Swamy and P.H. Parekh for the Petitioner.

B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, VJ. Rao, Y.P. Rao, Ms.
K. Kumaramanglam and Ms. S. Relhan for the Respondents.
c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KHALID, J: Shorn of details regarding allegations of malafides ·
1msupported by acceptabk evidence, the only question that falls for
consideration in this writ petition is whether the order of detention is
D liable to be quashed on the ground that the mandatory requirements,
contained in Section 8( 1) of the National Security Act, 1980 (herein-
after referred to as the 'Act') have not been complied with.

" The facts: The petitioner is one Hem Lall Bhandari residing in
Bombay, practising 'law' there. The first respondent is the State of
E Sikkim through its Home Secretary, the second respondent, the Delhi
Administration, Police Department and the third respondent, the
Union of India through the Home Secretary. The petitioner states that
he had a humble beginning and that he by dint of hard labour qualified
himself in law and secured significant success academically. It is ·~c
I .
alleged that the Chief Minister of Sikkim wanted him to join politics
F and that he incurred the wrath of the Chief Minister because of his
disinclination to accept this suggestion and that the order of detention
was passed against him cons•~quently.

On 29.9.1986, at 10.15 P.M. th~ee officers of the Sikkim Police
Service accompanied by two officers of the Bombay Police went to the
G residence of the petitioner and took him to the office of the C.I.D.,
Bombay where he was served with a copy of the detention order. He
was detained in the police lock-up at the C.I.D. office and his request
y- -
to contact a lawyer was not granted. He was kept in custody till 5.30
P.M. on 30-9-1986. At 6 P.M. on that day, he was permitted to go to
his office to collect some papers. There he contact'"d Shri T.R.
H Andhyarngina, Senior Counsel and informed him that he was being
H.L. BHANDARI v. STAIB OF SIKKIM [KHALID, J.] 81

taken to the Bombay Airport to be flown by flight IC-183, to Delhi. A
-y The Senior Counsel requested the police officers to permit him to
approach the Bombay High Court before taking the petitioner to
Delhi. This request was not granted. However, he filed a habeas
, corpus petition for the release of the petitioner in the Bombay High
Court on the same day and P.B. Sawant, J. stayed the order of deten-
tion as per the following order; at 7.30 P.M. B

"There are no grounds of detention furnished, nor any
·i documents, along with the order. The grounds for deten-
tion have to be served alongwith the order. The order is
-~
I
prima facie illegal. It is, therefore, stayed till further orders
from this Court."
c
This order could not be served on the detaining officer as the
'I Plane carrying the petitioner took off to Delhi at 8.30 P .M. Meanwhile
' at 11.30 P.M. Shri Ai:Jdhyarujina telephonically informed a Delhi
Advocate, Dr. Mrs. Swamy, of the order passed by the Bombay High
Court. On receipt of this information; she informed the officer on duty D
at the Airport, of the order of Bombay High Court. Nothing hap-
pened. Therefore, a petition was filed before this Court on !st
October, 1986 at 2.30 P.M. on which this Court passed an order direct-
.,
.
ing that the petitioner be detained in Delhi and should not be removed
from Delhi by the respondents and further that he should be produced
before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who might release him on E

- bail if he thought it fit. On -2-10-1986, the petitioner was. brought
before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who after hearing the
parties granted bail to the petitioner. The petitioner was released the
same evening at 4.30 P .M. on furnishing a bond of a sum of Rs.10,000
with a surety in the like sum. The petitioner returned to Bombay the
I next day. F
l
The address of the petitioner is well known io the respondents.
No serious attempt was made by them between ·2-Hl:-1986, and 14-10-
1986 to serve the petitioner with the grounds of detention. On 6th
October, 1986, the petitioner attended the Bombay High Court in
~ connection with the writ petition filed there and has been regularly G
attending his office and carrying on his professional duties both in the
\I office and in the High Court. On 14-10-1986, the petitioner was served
with the impugned order of detention, the grounds of detention and
the supporting documents. The case put forward by the petitioner's
counsel is that the delay caused in serving the grounds of detention,
from -2-10-1986 to 14-10-1986, clearly violates Section 8(1) of the Act H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A and on that ground the order of detention has to be quashed.

To meet the case of the petitioner that the grounds of detention
were served on him only 15 days after the order of detention a Counter
Affidavit is filed, sworn to by the Home Secretary, Government of '
Sikkim. We extract below the relevant portion of the Counter
l-
B Affidavit. 1~~

"On·2-10-1986, the petitioner was produced in the Court of
the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner was Fe-
leased on bail in pursuance of the order of this Hon'ble

c
Court.

OnJ-10-1986, the grounds of detention alongwith the
---
--.)-

materials were handed over to Shri K.P. Subba, for service
on the petitioner. Shri K.P. Subba, having learnt from Mrs.
Swami, who was his surety, that the petitioner left for
Bom,bay on the same day. On -4-10-1986, the Police Offi-
D cers could not contact the petitioner in his address. He
waited on 5-10-1986 also but he did not find the petitioner
at his house address or in the Court. He returned to New
Delhi on-6-10-1986. The writ petition No.1015 of 1986 was
heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sawant and Justice Kolse
Patil and by order dated 14-10-1986 discharged the rule.
E
The grounds of detention could not be served within .,....
the period of 5 days or 10 days as per section 8 of the Act,
because the petitioner was released 09 bail, by the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate on 2-10-1986 and the petitioner
avoided the police officer. The petitioner received the
F grounds alongwith the material on 14-10-1986 at Bombay
as per the orders of the High Court.

Shri K.P. Subba, the Police Officer waited till 6th
October, 1986 at Bombay and having found that he was not
able to contact the petitioner returned to Gangtok. Thus
G the grounds could not be served on the petitioner within
the stipulated period as the petitioner was not under deten-
tion from 2nd October, 86 onwards. Had the petitioner f
'
been in detention it would have been possible for me to get
the grounds served on the petitioner on 3rd October, 1986
itself. I respectfully submit that it is the petitioner who
H rendered every effort on my part to sel"Ve the grounds futile
H.L. BHANDARI v. STATE OF SIKKIM [KHALID, J.] 83

taking advantage of the various orders of the High Court of
A
Bombay and this Hon'ble Court. I did not know that the
Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was posted in the
·Bombay High Court on 6th October, 1986. No notice was
served on me or on the State Government about the post-
ing of the writ petition in the Bombay High Court on 6th
October, 1986. The only communication received was that B
the said case was posted on 14th Octob.er, 1986. Our Advo-"
cate General appeared on the day in the High Court of
Bomaby. I respectfully submit that the petitioner cannot be
allowed to contend that the provisions of Section 8 of the
Act were violated by me in view of the fact that the
petitioner was not in detention and was enlarged on bail by
the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Qelhi under the
c
orders of this Court. Therefore, I respectfully submit that
there is no violation on niy part of the provisions of Section
8 of the Act."

The petitioner has made various allegations of malafides against D
the Chief Minister of Sikkim. These allegations are not supported by
any acceptable evidence. Therefore, we do not propose to consider
them. Much was made of the fact that the Chief Minister has not filed a
Counter Affidavit himself denying the allegations. According to us it is
not necessary since the allegations are wide in nature and are bereft

- of details. We do not think it necessary in all cases to call upon persons
placed in high positions to controvert allegations made against them by
filing affidavits unless the allegations are specific, pointed and neces-
sary to be controverted. We, therefore, propose to confine ourselves
E

purely to the question whether there has been a violation of the man-
datory provisions contained in Section 8 of the Act. or not.
' F
The order of the Home Secretary directing the petitioner's
detention under Section 3 of the Act was made on 25-9-1986 and
grounds of detention were prepared on the same date. The petitioner
was served with the detention order on'29-9-1986 at 10.15 P.M. He was
taken to the Bombay Police lock-up that day. On 30-9-1986 at 6 P.M.
he was taken to his office in Bombay. On the saine day, the Bombay G
High Court passed an order at 7 .30 P.M. staying the detention order.
The Plane carrying the petitioner leaves Bombay for Delhi on the
same day at 8.30 P.M. The detaining officers were informed of the
order of the Bombay High Court on·l-10-1986 at 5 P.M. On the same
day at 3.30 P.M. the Supreme Court directs that the petitioner shall
not be taken out of Delhi. On ·2-10-1986, the Chief Metropolitan H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A Magistrate directs the petitioner's release on bail. On 14-10-1986, the
petitioner is served with grounds of detention. These facts are not
disputed.

Let us see how the concerned officer explains the delay caused in
serving· the grounds of detention on the petitioner. But before doing so
B we will read Section 8(1) of the Act.

"8(1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a deten-
tion order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as
may be, but ordinarily not later than five days and in excep-
tional circumstances and fd'r reasons to be recorded in writ-
ing, not later than fifteen days from the date of detention,
c communicate to him the grounds on which the order has
been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of
making a representation against the order to the appro-
priate Government."

D A bare reading of the Section shows that it is obligatory on the
detaining officer to communicate to the detenu, the grounds on which
the order of detention has been made, promptly. This has to be done
as soon as possible and ordinarily not later than 5 days. The detaining
authority is permitted to exceed this limitation of 5 days in exceptional
circumstances. The grounds of detention, under exceptional circums-
E tances, can be communicated to the detenu within a period not later
•
than 15 days from the date of detention but when the detaining autho- ~"';,

rity takes time longer than 5 days he was to record reasons why the
grounds of detention could not be communicated within 5 days. It is
clear in this case that the grounds of detention were communicated to
the petitioner long afte:r 10 days. There is no record evidencing any T
. i
F reason for this long delay.

We have therefore to examine the reasons why the grounds of
detention were given only on 14-10-1986. It is stated in the Counter
Affidavit sworn to by the Home Secretary that the grounds of deten-
tion were handed over to Shri K.P. Subba for service on the petitioner
G on 3-10-1986. This K.P. Subba has not chosen to file an affidavit in this
case to inform this Comt as to what really happened with the grounds I
of detention given to him for service on the petitioner. It is stated in
the Counter Affidavit that Shri Subba learnt from the petitioner'~ ~
Advocate, Mrs. Swamy,. that the petitioner had left for Bombay. The
Counter Affidavit continues to say that on -4-10-1986, the 'police offi-
H cers' could not contact the petitioner in his home address. It is not
H.L. BHANDARI v. STATE OF SIKKIM [KHALID, J.] 85

evident from this statement as to which officer tried to contact the
A
petitioner in his home address on-4-10-1986. It is further stated that he
waited on·S-10-1986 also but he did not find the petitioner at his house
address or in the Court. The Counter Affidavit is not sufficiently com-
municative as to who this police officer was. The Counsel for ,the
petitioner tried to impress upon us the fact that this statement cannot
be true because·S-10-1986 happens to be a Sunday and that no police B
officer would try to contact an Advocate in Court on Sunday. This
police officer is said to have returned to New Delhi on·6-10-1986. The

_
__,._
Counter Affidavit is eloquently silent about what happened after·6-10-
1986. The Counter Affidavit thereafter discloses the fact that Shri K.P.
Subba, the police officer, waited till 6th October, 1986 in Bombay and
returned to Gangtok since he was not able to contact the petitioner.
The complaint of the officer is that the petitioner made it impossible
c
for him to serve the grounds of detention. Every attempt on the part of
the officer to serve the petitioner' with grounds of detention were .
rendered futile by taking advantage of the orders of the High Court
and the Supreme Court. It is further stated in the Counter Affidavit
that the grounds of detention could not be served since the petitioner D
was released on bail and was not under detention from 2nd October,
1986 onwards.

We have considered the averments in the Counter Affidavit
carefully. We have no hesitation to hold that there has been a flagrant
violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 8 in this case. It is not E
permissible, in matters relating to the perso~al liberty and freedom of
a citizen, to take either a liberal or a generous view of the lapses on the
part of the officers. In matters where the liberty of the citizens is
involved, it is necessary for the officers to act with utmost expedition
~ and in strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of law.
\ Expeditious action is insisted upon as a safeguard against the mani- F
' pulation.

In this case there is no acceptable or satisfactory explanation as
to what the officer or the officers did after ·6-10-1986. This inaction
after 6-10-1986 till 14-10-1986, by itself is sufficient for us to hold that
Section 8(1) has been violated by the officer concerned and on that G
ground alone the order of detention has to be quashed.

An attempt was made by the counsel for the respondents to
contend that the delay in communicating the grounds of detention
caused in this case has to be condoned and the rigour of the Section
relaxed since the detenu had been released on 2-10-1986, and hence H
' 86 SUPkEME COURT REPORTS [19871 2 S.C.R.

A not in detention. This according to us is a specious plea which cannot
stand legal scrutiny. If this contention is to be extended to its logical
conclusion it would be clothing the authorities with powers to delay
communication of the ground of detention indefinitely, whenever a
detenu secures from a Court of Jaw either bail or parole. To accept
this contention would be to destroy the effect of the mandate of the
B Section. As indicated earlier, the mandate enacted in the Section is a
safety valve for a citizen who is robbed of his liberty and to disable the
authorities from manipulEtting the grounds of detention. The Section
has to be interpreted litt:rally. No relaxation is permissible. If the •
original time of 5 days has to be extended, such extension must be
snpported by an order rt:cording reasons. If reasons are not so fe- ...1-_
e corded the order of detention will automatically fail. Even if reasons
are recorded they have to inspire confidence in the Court and are
subject to legal scrutiny. If the reasons are unsatisfactory, Courts
would still quash the order of detention.

On a consideration of the materials placed before us we hold that
D the order of detention is bad and we quash the same. Since the
petitioner is not in detention there is no need to pass any order to
direct his release.

A.P.J. Petition allowed.

-
r.

I