National Security Act, 1980 – s.3(4) – Power to make orders detaining certain persons – Detention order against detenu – District Magistrate reporting the detention to the State Government on the fifth day, after the detention order – Challenge to, on the ground of failure of the detaining authority to report the detention to State Government ‘forthwith’ as provided u/s. 3(4) – High Court held that as long as the report to the State Government is furnished within twelve days of detention, it would not prejudice the detenu – On appeal, held: Expression ‘forthwith’ u/s. 3(4) must be interpreted to mean reasonable time and without any undue delay – There should be no laxity in reporting the detention to the Government – On facts, the District Magistrate offered no explanation for submitting the report to the State Government five days after passing the order of detention – This vitiated the order of detention – Thus, the order of the High Court set aside.
The issue before this Court is whether the provisions of Section 3(4) of the National Security Act, 1980, requiring the detaining authority to report the detention to the State Government ‘forthwith,’ have been violated.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 “Forthwith,” under Section 3(4) of the National Security Act, 1980 does not mean instantaneous, but without undue delay and within reasonable time. Whether the authority passing the detention order reported the detention to the State Government within reasonable time and without undue delay, is to be ascertained from the facts of the case. [Para 13] [604-A-B]
1.2 The High Court was not correct in holding that as long as the report to the State Government is furnished within twelve days of detention, it would not prejudice the detenu. It is settled law that a statute providing for preventive detention has to be construed strictly. While “forthwith” may be interpreted to mean within reasonable time and without undue delay, it certainly should not be laid down as a principle of law that as long as the report to the State Government is furnished within 12 days of detention, it will not prejudice the detenu. [Para 15] [604-F]
1.3 The detaining authority must furnish the report at the earliest possible. Any delay between the date of detention and the date of submitting the report to the State Government, must be due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the authority and not because of administrative laxity. [Para 16] [605-A-B]
1.4 In the instant case, the District Magistrate submitted the report to the State Government on the fifth day (17 July 2017), after the date of the detention order (12 July 2017). The reason for the delay of five days is neither mentioned in the State Government’s order confirming the detention order, nor in the impugned judgment. It was for the District Magistrate to establish that he had valid and justifiable reasons for submitting the report five days after passing the order of detention. As the decision in *Joglekar holds, the issue is whether the report was sent at the earliest time possible or whether the delay in sending the report could have been avoided. Moreover, as the decision in **Salim holds, there should be no laxity in reporting the detention to the Government. Whether there were administrative exigencies which justify the delay in sending the reports must be explained by the detaining authority. In the instant case, the District Magistrate offered no explanation. This would vitiate the order of detention. [Para 17] [605-B-E]
1.5 It is evident, that there was no traverse to the submission that the act of reporting the detention after five days was in violation of Section 3(4). The District Magistrate did not furnish any reason whatsoever for having taken five days to report the detention to the state government. There was no traverse of the ground taken. No justification was sought to be established for the delay in reporting the detention to the state government. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition is set aside. [Paras 18-19] [606-A-C]
**S.K. Salim v. State of West Bengal (1975) 1 SCC
653 : [1975] 3 SCR 394 – relied on.
*Keshav Nilkanth Joglekar v. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay [1956] SCR 653 ; Bidya Deb Barma v. D.M. Tripura, Agartala [1969] 1 SCR 562 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.