National Security Act| Prior Approval From Advisory Board Not Mandatory Before Extending Detention Period: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that prior approval from the Advisory Board is not mandatory before passing an extension order regarding the detention period of a detenu under the National Security Act, 1980.
The Indore Bench upheld the detention of a detenu under the National Security Act (NSA) and dismissed the petition challenging the detention order issued by the District Magistrate. The Court reiterated that preventive detention was a precautionary measure and that the expressive function of punishment or preventive measures like detention under the NSA were both retributive and utilitarian.
A Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Gajendra Singh observed, “No procedural lapse or violation has been seen in the detention order, as the same has been passed in accordance with the provisions of NSA. Nowhere in the provision of NSA, it is mandatory to take prior approval from the Advisory Board before each extension order regarding detention period is made, rest of the procedure has been followed in later and spirit. Conclusively, petition preferred by the petitioner fails.”
Advocate Abhinav Dhanodkar represented the petitioner, while G.A. Bhuwan Gautam appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner, who was the brother of the detenu, had filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution contending that the detention was unjust and violated constitutional rights. The petitioner argued that the detention order was “mechanical” and was passed without proper application of mind in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court, however, found that the detenu had a history of criminal cases since 2012, posing a threat to public order. The District Magistrate's decision to detain him under Section 3(2) of the NSA was based on recommendations from the Police calling the detenue a “threat to public peace.”
The Court noted that the detenu had not raised a ground of procedural lapse or violation of due process prescribed under Section 3 of NSA and had only argued that before passing each extension order, approval from the Advisory Board was not taken.
“Long trail of criminal cases of different nature certainly suggest that they cannot be motivated at the instance of police authorities or at the instance of some vested interest. These are the instances/discredit points which are being acquired by the detenu because of his misdeeds, misdemeanors and criminal bent of mind. Therefore, different nature of cases registered and tried against the detenu even through resulted into acquittal cannot be taken lightly,” the Court remarked.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Mohammad Huzefa Pathan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Abhinav Dhanodkar
Respondents: G.A. Bhuwan Gautam
