NSA | One Day Delay In Reporting To Centre About Preventive Detention Order Not Substantial: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the preventive detention of Haryana's alleged Azad gang member Parveen alias Dada under the National Security Act, 1980.

Among other grounds, it was argued that the State authorities did not follow the timeline provided under Section 3(5) of NSA.

As per the provision, when preventive detention order is made or approved by the State Government, the State shall, "within seven days", report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal while noting that the delay in the present case was of only 1 day said, "the breach of timeline provided in Section 3(5) of NSA is only marginal and not substantial. More so, justiciability of an order of preventive detention, cannot be assessed dehors various compelling circumstances of glaring breach of public orders faced by District Magistrate, Rohtak."

The bench noted that various factors which compelled the District Magistrate to pass the impugned order of preventive detention can cumulatively be reiterated as the petitioner being an active member of Azad Gang, repeatedly violating the terms and conditions on which he was granted bail.

It added that Dada was setting a wrong example for the youngsters of following the path of crime and having suffered seven convictions in the last 10 years and being subjective to investigation or criminal trials in 9 offences.

Speaking for the bench Chief Justice Sheel Nagu highlighted that on one occasion, on being released on bail, huge crowd gathered to welcome him as a 'Hero' and lamented that the viral video clips from the incident invited large number of 'likes.

"It was obvious that the youth of the area concerned are being misled in following nefarious activities of the petitioner," the bench added.

It opined that the District Magistrate took "timely steps" to prevent the younger generation from being spoiled any further, by passing the impugned order of preventive detention.

"The petitioner was eulogised by the younger generation who because of being gullible were unknowingly following the wrong path. It is thus imperative for the District Magistrate to step in and prevent any further serious crime from being committed by the petitioner by passing the impugned order of preventive detention," the Court observed.

The Court was hearing the plea under Article 226/227 of the Constitution challenging the preventive detention order passed by District Magistrate, Rohtak, on 01.05.2024 and all subsequent orders of State Government.

Counsel for the petitioner Siddharth Sihag among other grounds argued that the nature of offences registered against the petitioner are insufficient to give rise to a cause of breach of public order.

After examining the submissions, the Court noted that "it is obvious that the nature of crimes registered against the petitioner may not ostensibly appear to be serious since they do not attract a sentence of more than 2-3 years (except offence punishable under Section 307 IPC) but the sense of fear and terror arising therefrom was taken note of by the competent authority to arrive at the satisfaction that if an order of preventive detention is not passed, then the petitioner would commit further offences of similar or graver nature which can be prejudicial to public order."

The bench found that the impugned order of preventive detention has been passed by applying mind by the District Magistrate for good and sufficient reasons though subjectively but based on objective material.

Coming back to non-compliance of Section 3(5), the Court said, "considering the fact that this Court is upholding the order of preventive detention on-merits, disturbing the same on single day delay in forwarding by State Government to Government of India would be travesty of justice."

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Advocates Siddharth Sihag and Sakshi Sharma appeared for the petitioner; Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Dheeraj Jain, Advocate (through v.c.) for respondent-Union of India; Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

Title: PARVEEN ALIAS DADA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 06

Click here to read/download the order