Holding

The Court held that there was no unlawful delay; the representation was forwarded with reasonable promptness and the Advisory Board considered the case within the statutory time, so the detention order stands.

Summary

The petitioners challenged the preventive detention of Raisuddin under the National Security Act, 1980, alleging that the State Government failed to forward the detainee's representation to the Advisory Board within the statutory period, thereby violating Section 10 of the Act. The Court examined whether a delay in forwarding the representation, and the interpretation of the phrase "place before" in Section 10, could vitiate the detention. It held that the assessment of delay must be based on the facts of each case and not on a rigid formula, and that "place before" merely means to forward the documents to the Advisory Board, not to ensure the Board's consideration within three weeks. The Court found that the District Magistrate acted with all reasonable promptness given the circumstances, and that the Advisory Board disposed of the case within the seven‑week period prescribed by Section 11. Consequently, no ground existed to interfere with the detention order, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in forwarding the detainee's representation to the State Government violates Section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980.
How the phrase "place before" in Section 10 should be interpreted – as forwarding documents or as ensuring Board consideration within three weeks.
Whether any delay, if present, vitiates the continued detention under the Act.

Legislation cited

National Security Act, 1980s. 10, s. 11, s. 12, s. 3(3), s. 8, s. 9

Subjects

preventive detentionNational Security Actdelay in representationSection 10 interpretationAdvisory BoardArticle 32habeas corpus

Judgment

'.

•

' ..
v•.

·.. STATE OF.UTTAR PRADESH &AN~.

Oclober 7, 1983 ·

(V. B'r..:-KRISHNA ERADI AND R.B. M;sRA, JJ.)
..,,
.

Nationa{ Security Acf7- 19B~SeC. 3. (3)-Dete~tion. order-Delay"- in·
dealing with detenu':1 representaJion vitiates detention oTdei-Whether .there is
delay depends uponfa~·ts and circumstanc"e of each case-The'-re is no rigid rule
--<i;/
or set formula. ~ · . , ....
• National Security· Act,' 1980-Se'c.· - 10-lnterpretaiion of-The _words
''p/ac; .- before the Advisory-__ Board'' means foTWard _to or sub'!!_it before _ the·
AdvisorY" Boar_d and nothing '!"ore~ - .·

ThC PetitioOer who was detained by an ord;r p assed u~der sec. 3 (3) - of
1

D '-the National SeCurity" Act, 1980 challeo8ed the validity of his detentio11 on the·
ground that there h~d · been inordinate de!ay -on the part of the· detaining
·authority. in forwardit1g the petitioner's representiltion to the State -Government. ·
· and that there had.bee.n ·viol<i."tioD. of the tnandatory provisions of sec. 10 of the·
Act which enjoinS the State GoverntrlCnt to take steps tO see that the case of
-: the detenu is c~nsidered by the AdviSory-~oard· within three week.S; ,fropl the·

, date of detention.

n·i~sin~ _the .writ t:cti.tion:
,HELD : .The question ~~ether tqe representoition submittCd bJ a detenu
has been dealt with an ·reasonable promptness and. diligence is to . be decided
· not by the.application of any rigid ot inflexible iule" or set formula. nor by .a:
F , merC arithmetiCal counting of dates, but by a careful scrutiny of the facts and
circumstances of each case; if on su~texamination, it is found that there ·was
8.ny remissness, fndifferef!ce or av~idab!e delay on the part of the'. detaiD.ing ·
aUthority /State Government in dealing with the representation,' the Court will
undoubtedly treat it as a factor "itiating the co.ntintied detention of the detellu;
.oil the Other h_and, if the Court.is satisfied.that thC delay was· occaSien("d• not .. )'
by any lack of diUgence or promptness of attentioD ·on the part of the authority _
G concerned. but due lo unavoidable circumstance or reasons· entirely- beyond :
. his control, such delay will not be treated as furnishing a ground for the· erant
of relief to the detenu against bis continued deten~ion. [344 C-F]

_· ibe. instant case- faUs· under the latter category inasmuch as . the ·court
is. satisfied on its· perus3.t of ihe original file pertaining to -c this rca;e maintained
H , m- the office of the District Magistrate ·and: the averments' ~ontained in ihe
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that -the petiti"oner's- repre..- _- : ·
, scntation has bee~ ~ealt with all the promptness that_ was reasonably possible
ll.A1siloo1N v. u.P. STATE (V.B. Bradt, J.) 341
under the circumstances then obtaining and that there was no avoidable delay_
on the part of the District Magistrate in forwarding the pet.itioner•s A
representation. [344 B; G]
Under.sec. 10 of the Act a duty"is cast on the ~ppropriate G0vefnmerlt
to ''place before'; the Advisory Board constituted under sec. 9 within three
weeks-from the date of detention the grounds on which the order of detention
has been made and the representation,-if anY., made.by the Pt!rson affected _by
.the order. It is wq.olly wrong to interpret the words "place before" as meaning B
anything n1ore than •forward-to' or ·submit before' the Advisory JJoard the
relevant papCrs relating to the detention of the detenu. It is eiltirely for the
Advisory Board to regulate. its Schedule of holding meetings and conducting its
business in accordance with the procedure laid down under sec. 11 of the Act
· which has specified a time limit of seten weeks fro~ the date of detention for
the submission· of the Board's report to the appropriate Government.
. [345 G-H; 346 A-B] . c
+
In the present case the Advisory Board had disp9sed of the petitioner's
c·ase well within the period of seven weeks specified· in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 1 J,
of the Act. [346 C] ' '

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ· Petition
•(Criminal) No. 37 of
1983 ..
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution)
Mrs. M. Qamaruddin and Rizwan A. Hafiezfonhe Petitioner.

.
O.•P. Malhotra, and D. Bhand.,ri for the Respondents.
.
TP,e Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. Taking into consideration the fact that
, this is .a petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus filed under
Article 32 the Constitution oflndia challenging the legality of the
preventive detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the
Nationai Security Act 1980 and the conseqaent urgency· of the matter,
as so.on as the hearing of arguments in the case were completed, we
.announced the conclusion reached by us by passing the following
order: G
"After hearing counsel, appearing on botb sides, we have·
come to the conclusion that the order of detention impu·
gned in this Writ Petition does not call for any inter·
ference. The Writ Petition is. accordingly dismissed.
Detailed reason will follow." H
We now proceed .to state the reasons that weighed with us in
reaching the aforesaid conclusion.
a4i •
SUPREME COURT REPoRTS [1!184] l s.c.R.
By an order dated November 6, 1982, passed by the District
Magistrate, Moradabad, in exercise of the powers conferred under
section 3, sub-section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980-herein-.
after called the Act-the petitioner, Shri Raisuddin @ Babu Tamchi
was ordered to be 1clrrested by the Senior Superintendent . of
Police and to be detained in the District Jail, M<iradabad, with a
B view. to his being prevented from mdulging in any activity which may
affect the,maintenance of public order. Pursuant there to, the peti·
tioner was arrested on 8th November, 1982, and placed undeP
detention. On the same day (8.11~ 1982), · the petitioner was served
with the order of detention ·and a .memorandum setting out th~
grounds of his detention. On 12th November, 1982, the State
c Government approved the detention of the petitioner and on the
18th of November, ·the case was referred by the State Government
to· the Advisory Board constituted under section 9 of the Act. Subse-
quently, on 24th November ·1982, the petitioner submitted bis
representation against t)!e order of detention. The said representa-
. tion was addressed by the petitioner to the District Magistrate,
D Moradabad. The District Magistrate forwarded the represen-
tation · on the same day to the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Moradabad, for his comments on the submissions contained
in the letter. On the 27th of November, 1982, the Senior Superin-
tendent. of Police submitted his comments to the DistriCt Magistrate.
Thereafter, on 3rd December, 1982, the District Magistrate sent a
report to the State Government enclosing the representation as well
as the comments submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police.
The aforesaid papers despatched from Moradabad were received by
the State Government on the 6th December, 1982. On 9th December,
!9S2, the State Government considered the petitioner's representation
F and rejected the same. Simultaneously, on the same day, the State
Government forwarded the . representation of the petitioner
to the Advisory Board. On 10.12.1982, the Advisory Board met to
, consider the case of the petitioner, gave a_, personal hearing
to the petitioner and drew up its report holding that there was suffi-
G cient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The report of the
Advisory Board was received by the. State Government on 12th
December, 1982, and on 21st December, 1982, the State Government
confirmed· the detention order under section 12 of the Act. The peti-
tioner wa& informed about the order of.confirmati?n on· 24.22.1982.
H
Though a faint attempt was made before us by the counsel for
the petitioner to contend that the grounds of detention served on the
petitioner did not disclose any material relevant under section 3 of
RA!SUDDIN v. U.P. STATE (V.B. Eradi, J.) 343
the Act, there is no scope at all for urging such a contention in the
present case. The imputation against the petitioner is that he was
inciting and fomenting communal hatred and .violence and creating
an atmosphere· of fear and tension in the town of Moradabad as a
resu~ of which the schools, colleges .and shops were remaining closed
.in the town and terror reigned in the whole town .. Two criminal
cases had been registered against him under section i 47 /353/153A
•l.P.C./7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. As there was a possibility
8
of his being released on bail and continuing to indulge in such acti-
vities which were greatly prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order, -it was considered necessary by the detaining authority to place
the petitioner under detention. Having regard to the situation then
prevail\ng in the town of Moradabaa whii;:h was unfortunately the t
scene of grave communal disturbances, it is impossible to counte- .
nance the contention advanced on behalf of the' petitioner that the ·
grounds set out in support of the oraer of detention are. irrelevant
for sustaining an order of detention being made under section 3 of
the Act. ·
D
• The next argument advanced on behalf• of the petitioner was

-.,, . that there had been inordinate delay on the part of the detaining
authority in forwarding the ·petitioner's representation to the State
Government. The petitioner liad addressed his representation .not
to the State Government as contemplated by section 8 of the Act,
E
but to the District Magistrate, Moradabad. It was received by the
District Magistrate on the 24th of November and promptly, on the
.same day, the Dirtrict Magistrate forwarded it -to Senior Superinten-
dent of Police for the latter's comments. The comments of the Senior
superintendent of Police were received in the office of the District
Magistrate on the 27th November .but it was only on the 3rd Decem- F
ber that the District .Magistrate forwarded his report to the State
Government enclosing the petitioner's representation and the c_om-
ments of the S7nior Superintendent of Police. It was vehemently
~·· argued by the counsel for the petitioner that there bad been undue and
unexplained delay on the part of the detaining autho;ity in forwar-
ding the petitioner's representation to the State Government inasmuch
as a period of nearly six days had elased between the receipt of the
comments of the Senior Superintendent of Police in the office of the
District Magistrate and the submission of bis report to the State
' Government. The original file pertaining to this case maintained in
the office of the District Magistrate was produced before us for our
perusal by Sliri 0 P. Malhotra, the learned Senior Advocate appear-
ing on behalf of the respondents. It is seen tbe~from that during
SUPREME COURT REPORTS· [1984] 1 s.c.it.

the period from 28th November to the . evening of the !st December, >-- ...
1982, the District Magistrate had to emergently leave his headquar-
ters because of the disturbances tha.t had occurred in other localities
within his Jurisdi.ction where his presence was urgently needed for
tackling the explosive situation. After he rcturhed to the headjmir-
ters on the evening of 1st December, the District Magistrate without
losing any further time forwarded the petitioner's representation to
B
the State Government on the 3rd December together with his report
and the comments. received from the Senior Superintendent of Police.
We arc fully satisfied on our perusal of the file and the averments
contained in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents
• that the petitioner's representation has. been. dealt with by the Dis-
0 trict Mftgistrate with all the promptness that was rea,oriably possible
under the circumstances then obtaining·in Moradabad city and the
snrrounding areas arid that the charge of lnordinaic. delay levelled
by the petitioner is baseless. ,In this context we consider it necessary
, to emphasise that the questioff whether the representation submitted
·by a. detenu· has been dealt with all reasonable promptness and
D · · deligence is to be decidad not by the application of any rigid or
inflexible rule or set formula nor by a mere arithmetical counting
' .
.
.
of dates, but by a careful scrutiny of the facts and, circumstances of
~
each case; if on such examination, it is found that there was any
remissness, indifference, or avoidable delay on the part of the detain-
ing authority/State Government in dealing with the rep~esentation,
the Court will undoubtedly treat it as a factor vitiating the continued /
oetention of the detenu; on the other hand, if the Court is satisfied
that the delay was OCCassioned not by any lack Of deligence OF
pro.mptness of attention on !he part of the authority concerned,
but due.to unavoidable circumstances or reasons entirely beyond his
F control, such delay will not be treated as furnishing a ground for the
grant of relief to the detenu against his continued detention. As
already indicated, the case before us falls under the latte.r category
inasmuch as we are satisfied that there was no avoidable delay on the
part of the District Magistrate in forwarding the petitioner's
G representation.
The last point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that there
,has been a violation of the provisions of the section 10 of
the Act
because the Advisory Board had not considered the case of the
petitioner within three weeks from the date. of detention. As already
H noticed, the petitioner submitted his representation to the District
Magistrate against the. detention onli on 24. 11, 1982 eVtin thouah he
had been. "'
arrested and placed under detention on 8th November. Th~
ll.AISUDDIN v. U.P• STATE (V..B. Eradi,J.) 345

sard representation reached the State Government-on 6th December,
1982. In the meantime, the petitioner's case· had been referred by A
the State Government to the Advisory Board .on the 18th November
·itself. The representation received from the petitioner was forwarded
by the State Government to the State Advisoty Board on 9th Decem-
ber, 1982. The Advisory Board held its meeting on 10th December,
1982 and, -after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner, made
B
its report finding sufficient cause for the detention of th~ 11etitioner.
The argument put forward on behalf of the retitioner is that section.
10 mandatorily en joins the State Government to take steps to see
that the case of the detenu is considered by· tl)_e Advisory Board
within three weeks frol]l the da.te of detention.. We are unable. to see
any merit in this contention. Section 10 reads :

+ "Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, in
every case where a detention ·or(Jer has been made' under
this Act, the appropriate Gov~rnmeni shall, within three.
weeks from the date of detention of a person under
the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted by D
it under section 9' the grounds on which the order has
been made and the representation; if any, made by the
person affected by the order, and in case where the order
has been made by an officer mentioned in sub-section (3)
of sectiO'll 3, also the report by such officer under sub-
section (4) oftha.t section."

-- Under the section; a 'duty is cast on the appropriate Government,
to "Place before" the Advisory" Board constituted under ·section 9
within three weeks from the date of detention, tbe grounds on which
the. order of detention has been made and the representation, "- 11
if any, made by the person affected by the order. The petitioner's
counsel wanted us to interpret the words "plac~ before the Advisory
Board" as meaning "get considered by tbe Advisory Board''. We
are wholly· unable to accede to this argument. Under the terms of.the
section, tlte duty cast on the appropriate Gpvemment is to forward .IQ
the Advisory. Board constituted under' section 9 within three weeks G
from the date of detention, the papers pertaining to the detention of
the detenu consisting pf the grounds on which· the o~der ·has been
made, the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the
order, etc. It is to be remembered that the Advisory Board is not an
entity subordinate to the Government. It is a wholly independent R
l;>ody cons.istin~ of persons who are or have been or are qualified to be
346. SUPREMB COURT REPORTS (1984] I s.c.R.

appointed as Judg~s ofa!lJigh Court. It is entirely for the Advisory
Board to regulate its schedule of holding meetings and conducting
its business in accordance with the procedure laid down under section
11 of the Act which has specified a time. limit or seven weeks from
the date. o.f detention for the submission of the Board's report to the
appropriate Government. It is, therefore, wholly wrong to interpret
the words "place before" as meaning anything more than forward .
B
to or submit befo_re the Advisory Board the relevant papers relating
to the detention of the detenu. In the present case, the Advisory
Board has disposed of the petitioner's case well within the period of
seven weeks specified in sub-section (I) of Section 11 .of the Act.
This contention of the petitioner is also, therefore, devoid of
substance. •
The conclusion that emerges from the foregoing discussion is
that thereis no ground whatever justifying any interference with the
order.of detention passed against the petitioner and the writ petion is,
tlterefor.e, <;mly to be dism'issed.
D
H.S.K. Petition dismis~ed.

• .. ••

. .