Detention Under NSA Cannot Be Extended In The Name Of Public Interest Merely For A Crime Committed By Another Person: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Court quashed the impugned order extending the detention period under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA), which was challenged by the petitioner (detenue) on the ground that once the confirmation order was passed under Section 12(1) of the NSA for three months, the state government cannot review it after the expiry of three months.

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi stated, “As per the reasons mentioned in the detention order, Rahul and other have already been arrested in respect of Crime No.119/2024. There is no such definition of ''gang'' in the penal law, there is only a provision of formation of unlawful assembly. The petitioner is not the member of that unlawful assembly which has committed the Crime No.119/2024 and he is not the accused in the aforesaid crime. Therefore, for the crime committed by some other person, the period of detention has wrongly been done in the name of public interest and maintenance of law & order.”

Advocate Akash Rathi appeared for the petitioner, while Deputy Solicitor General Himanshu Joshi represented the respondents.

A detention order was passed against the petitioner initially for a period of three months. Before the expiry of the detention period, the State Government extended the detention period for three months in light of a member of the Azad Gang along with the associates committing double murder and an FIR in this regard was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 & 120-B of the IPC, and that the petitioner was allegedly the member of this Azad Gang.

The State submitted that the Central or State Government can pass an order under Section 3(2) of the NSA directing such a person to be detained. As per proviso to sub-section (3) the period specified in an order made by the Station Government under this sub-section may not, in first instance, exceed three months, but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time.

The High Court clarified that the petitioner was not aggrieved by the original order of detention or by its confirmation, but he was aggrieved by the order of extension of the detention period.

“On merit, so far as reasons for extension of the detention period thrice are concerned, initially the petitioner was detained for a period of three months on the basis of his criminal antecedents. The initial period of detention was only three months as contemplated under Article 22(4), but in the extension orders the reason which is recorded that associates of this petitioner and the head of Azad Gang namely Rahul has committed double murder in Ratlam City and they have been arrested, if this appellant is released, he may again commit the criminal offence,” the Bench observed.

The Court directed that the “State Government is hereby restrained to pass any order of extension” noting that the petitioner’s detention was extended for a crime he did not commit.

Consequently, the Court observed, “In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned order of extension of detention period dated 16.07.2024 and all consequential order are hereby quashed. The State Government is hereby restrained to pass any order of extension. The petitioner be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other case.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.

Cause Title: Harsh @ Harshvardhan v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:MPHC-IND:29721)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Akash Rathi

Respondents: Deputy Solicitor General Himanshu Joshi; Government Advocate Bhuwan Gautam

Click here to read/download the Order