- The writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution on account of a detention order passed against the petitioner under the National Security Act, 1980.
- The controversy emanates from FIR lodged for the offence under Section(s) 186/353/504/506 & 507 of the IPC and another FIR lodged for the offence under Section(s) 188/211/353/447 of the IPC. The allegation is this that the petitioner did not allow the revenue officials to collect land revenue from one Jamal Hasan and has alleged to have threatened the officials for sealing the residence. The second FIR does not name the petitioner but was filed for opening the sealed property. In both the cases petitioner obtained regular bail before the Sessions Judge.
- However, on the basis of the aforesaid FIRs, the SHO Moradabad and Senior Superintendent made representations for initiating proceedings against the petitioner u/S 3(2) of the National Security Act. Thereafter, District Magistrate passed an order exercising powers under Section 3(3) of the said Act for his detention and custody as a prisoner of general class under Section 2(3) of the said Act. The detention was approved by Advisory Board and thereafter orders were passed extending the period of detention.
- The Petitioner had approached the High Court through Habeas Corpus Petition, however, the Petition was kept pending and hearings were deferred.
Issues
Whether the authorities were correct in invoking the provisions of National Security Act, 1980 in a revenue recovery case, in the facts of the present case?
Held
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the proceedings initiated under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980.
- In the factual scenario all that happened was that the revenue officials went to the property to recover their dues. We in fact asked the counsel for the State that whether there is any such practice of the revenue officials going from one property to the other to recover their dues. Obviously, it is not so! The allegation against the petitioner was of endeavoring to obstruct locking of premises. However, what was subsequently added was that on a phone call he threatened the officers
- Even assuming all the aforesaid facts to be correct, the exercise of the said Act in respect of the incident is shocking and unsustainable. That such a proposal was made, received the imprimatur of the senior officer(s) and even of the Advisory Board does not reflect well on the manner in which the authorities exercise their mind by invoking the provisions of the said Act.
- A reading of the statement of object and reasons of the Act would show that it was to control the anti social and anti national elements including secessionist, communal and procaste elements, that affect the services essential to the community, thereby posing a grave challenge. This was particularly in respect of defence, security, public order and services essential to the community which have resulted in the National Security Ordinance, 1980 being promulgated and the Act was to replace the ordinance.
- We find no element present in the case for exercise of this power of detention and extension of detention and have no hesitation in quashing the proceedings under the said Act as wholly without any basis. It is a clear case of non application of mind of all the authorities concerned.
Relevant Page No.
- 4, 5