Failure To Communicate Rejection Of Detenu Representation In Time Bound Manner Vitiates Detention Under National Security Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that the failure of the government to communicate the rejection of the representation in a time bound manner would vitiate the order of detention.

The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Dinesh Maheshwari allowed an appeal filed against a judgment passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court which had upheld an order of detention passed against a person named Devesh Chourasia under Section 3 of the National Security Act 1980.

The court noted that Chourasia was an employee in the pharmaceutical wing of City Hospital which was run by one Sarabjit Singh Mokha. [who was the appellant in the criminal appeal which resulted in the judgment titled  Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs District Magistrate, Jabalpur LL 2021 SC 608 ]. Mokha was arrested after an FIR registered against him alleging that he procured fake Remdesivir injections which were administered to patients during the Covid-19 pandemic in order to make illegal profits thereby endangering the life of the general public. Later, he was detained under Section 3(2) of the NSA, for a period of three months. He submitted a representation against the order of detention both to the Home Department of the State Government and the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Central Government. In terms of the provisions of Section 10 of the NSA, the State Government submitted the grounds for detention and the representation of the appellant to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 10. The Advisory Board submitted its report to the State Government under Section 11 on 15 June 2021 opining that there was sufficient cause for the detention. The detenu challenged the detention order before the High Court. Against the order dismissing his writ petition, he approached the Apex Court.

The court noted that in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha case, the two principal grounds which weighed with the Court for quashing the detention order were that (i) the detenue was deprived of the right which emanates from the provisions of Section 8(1) of having the representation being considered expeditiously; and (ii) the failure of the Central and the State governments to communicate the rejection of the representation in a time bound manner would vitiate the order of detention.

"No distinguishable feature has been indicated in the counter affidavit which has been filed in these proceedings. As a matter of fact, as already indicated above, the appellant was in the pharmaceutical wing of the hospital which was conducted by the appellant in the previous case decided by this Court. Both the AAG and ASG did not dispute the applicability of the earlier judgment of this Court.", the court said while allowing the writ petition setting aside the detention orders.

 Case name: Devesh Chourasia vs District Magistrate, Jabalpur

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 122 

Case no.| date:  CrA 125 of 2022

[Arising out of SLP (Crl) No 924 Jan 2022

Coram: Justice DY Chandrachud and Dinesh Maheshwari

Counsel: Sr. Adv Sidharth Luthra for appellant, AAG Saurabh Mishra for State and ASG K.M. Nataraj for UoI

Click here to Read/Download Order