Sidhi Urination Case: MP High Court Upholds Accused's NSA Detention, Says His One Act Threatened Peace & Tranquility In Entire State
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus plea filed by the wife of the accused detenu in Sidhi urination case, challenging his preventive detention. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra said the authorities have rightly complied with the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 while initiating proceedings against Pravesh Shukla...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus plea filed by the wife of the accused detenu in Sidhi urination case, challenging his preventive detention.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra said the authorities have rightly complied with the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 while initiating proceedings against Pravesh Shukla under Section 3(2) of the said Act to prevent him from committing any further act prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
“…The act of the detenu urinating on the concerned man had infuriated the society throughout the State of Madhya Pradesh and other parts of the country also. A communal angle was also sought to be canvassed in various social media. The public had become restless and infuriated. They were likely to take law onto their hands. The situation was getting out of control. Immediate steps had to be taken by the State to prevent deterioration of the law and order in the State…”, the court observed in an order pronounced yesterday.
While noting that just the one act committed by Pravesh Shukla has created a law-and-order situation in the State that threatened the ‘peace and tranquility in the state’, the Division Bench further underscored that this can only be deemed as a fit case where NSA has been invoked to prevent repetition of such offences.
A video had previously gone viral on social media where the accused was allegedly seen smoking a cigarette and urinating upon a tribal man. Subsequently, the District Collector initiated proceedings against him under NSA, upon recommendation from the Police Superintendent.
“…It is because the video went viral, the fact came to the knowledge of the authorities. However, nobody dared to make a report against the detenu. Substantial material has been produced by the State to indicate a serious law and order situation in the entire State of Madhya Pradesh…”, the court noted.
The court, after examining the records, observed that the detention order was issued and communicated to the accused within the time frame stipulated in Section 8(1) of National Security Act, which mandates that time frame to be ‘not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances, within ten days’. On the issue of the accused humiliating the tribal, the court opined that even the victim was afraid of reporting the matter to authorities because of the power and clout the former had in the entire community.
Relying on Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (1970) 1 SCC 98 and Subhas Bhandari v. D.M. (1987) 4 SCC 685, the High Court noted as below:
“On perusal of the settled proposition of law, it is apparently clear that it is not the act/offence per se which is to be considered while taking up proceedings under the National Security Act but it is the potentiality and the impact, which in certain circumstances, may affect even tempo of the life of the community thereby jeopardizing the public order, which is taken note of in the present case”.
Adequate safeguards mentioned in Section 3(4), Section 3(5) Section 8 and Section 12 of the NSA, 1980 to prevent the misuse of the provisions for preventive detention has been rightfully complied with by the authorities concerned, the court concluded. The bench also added that the detenu has been punctually informed about his right to make representation against the detention to the District Magistrate, the State Government, the Advisory Board as well as the Central Government.
The court also disregarded the argument pressed by the wife of the accused that the period of detention is not specified in the detention order. The court referred T. Devaki vs Govt. of T.N (1990) where the apex court held that the order of detention can’t be rendered illegal because of the non-mentioning of the period of detention in the detention order.
Accordingly, the court concluded that there were no infractions of law by the concerned authorities while issuing the detention order and dismissed the habeas corpus plea made by the wife of the detenu.
Case Title: Smt. Kanchan Shukla W/o Pravesh Shukla v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary Home Department & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 16261 of 2023