Supreme Court quashes detention order under National Security Act: Devesh Chourasia vs. District Magistrate (24 January 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 24 January 2022

Citation: Criminal Appeal No 125 of 2022 [Arising out of SLP (Crl) No 9919 of 2021]

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a detention order be upheld if there are significant delays in processing the detenu’s representation and communicating its rejection? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the National Security Act, 1980. The Court examined whether procedural lapses by the government in handling a detenu’s representation could invalidate the detention order. The bench comprised of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.

Case Background

The appellant, Devesh Chourasia, was an employee in the pharmaceutical wing of City Hospital, which was run by Sarabjit Singh Mokha. Both Chourasia and Mokha were subject to detention orders under the National Security Act, 1980. The allegations against them stemmed from the seizure of fake Remdesivir injections in Gujarat. It was alleged that Chourasia procured these injections without a bill and administered them to patients at City Hospital. The detention order against Chourasia was passed on 11 May 2021, and subsequently extended on 8 July 2021.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, Devesh Chourasia, filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No 10177 of 2021) before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, challenging his detention order. This petition was heard “analogously” with another petition (Writ Petition No 10085 of 2021) filed by Sarabjit Singh Mokha. The High Court rejected both petitions on 24 August 2021. Subsequently, Sarabjit Singh Mokha appealed to the Supreme Court, which set aside his detention order on 29 October 2021. The Supreme Court noted that the facts of Chourasia’s case were substantially similar to Mokha’s. Chourasia then appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued notice on 3 January 2022, noting the applicability of the earlier judgment.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the National Security Act, 1980. Specifically, the following provisions are relevant:

• Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980: This section empowers the government to issue detention orders to prevent individuals from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the state or the maintenance of public order.
• Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980: This section grants a detenu the right to make a representation against the detention order to the detaining authority. The authority is obligated to consider this representation expeditiously.

The Supreme Court’s judgment underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in preventive detention laws, emphasizing that the right to representation under Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980 must be effectively protected.

Arguments

The appellant, Devesh Chourasia, argued that his detention was illegal due to:

• Delay in considering the representation: The representation dated 22.05.2021 was sent to the State Government on 24.05.2021 and delivered on 27.05.2021. However, the Central Government rejected the representation vide wireless message dated 27.07.2021, a delay of nearly two months.
• Failure to communicate the decision: The Central Government’s wireless message dated 27.07.2021 directed the SP to collect the detenu’s acknowledgment of receipt. However, no such acknowledgement was acquired nor any proof has been filed by the Respondents.

The State of Madhya Pradesh and the Union of India did not dispute the applicability of the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in Sarabjit Singh Mokha vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur, which dealt with similar issues of delay and non-communication of the decision on the representation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the detention order was liable to be set aside due to the delay in considering the representation of the detenu?
2. Whether the detention order was liable to be set aside due to the failure of the Central and the State governments to communicate the rejection of the representation in a time-bound manner?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Sarabjit Singh Mokha vs District Magistrate, Jabalpur [Criminal Appeal No 1301 of 2021] – Supreme Court of India: This case, decided earlier by the Supreme Court, involved similar facts and legal issues. The Court followed its previous decision in this case.
• Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980: This provision mandates that the detaining authority must consider the representation of the detenu expeditiously.

Judgment

Authorities:

• The Court followed the judgment in Sarabjit Singh Mokha vs District Magistrate, Jabalpur [Criminal Appeal No 1301 of 2021], noting the substantial similarity in facts and legal issues.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the procedural lapses in handling the detenu’s representation. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards provided under the National Security Act, 1980. The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the need to protect the fundamental rights of the detenu, particularly the right to have their representation considered expeditiously and the right to be informed of the decision in a timely manner.

The Court’s decision was primarily driven by legal considerations, emphasizing the procedural requirements under the National Security Act, 1980. While the facts of the case provided the context, the legal principles and the need to uphold the detenu’s rights were the predominant factors.

The Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations. The decision was based on the clear violation of the procedural safeguards under the National Security Act, 1980. The Court found that the delay in considering the representation and the failure to communicate the decision were sufficient grounds to invalidate the detention order. The Court quoted from the judgment:

“The delay by the State Government in disposing of the representation and by the Central and State Government in communicating such rejection, strikes at the heart of the procedural rights and guarantees granted to the detenu.”

The Court also quoted:

“The failure of the Central and the State Government to communicate the rejection of the appellant’s representation in a time-bound manner is sufficient to vitiate the order of detention.”

The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges, with no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Expeditious Consideration of Representation: Detaining authorities must ensure that representations made by detenus under the National Security Act, 1980 are considered expeditiously.
• Timely Communication of Decision: The decision on the representation must be communicated to the detenu in a timely manner.
• Procedural Safeguards: The procedural safeguards provided under preventive detention laws must be strictly adhered to.
• Impact on Future Cases: This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural compliance in preventive detention cases and may serve as a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of detention dated 11 May 2021, as well as the consequential extensions granted on 8 July 2020 and 30 September 2021.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that any delay in considering the representation of a detenu under the National Security Act, 1980, and any failure to communicate the decision on the representation in a timely manner, will vitiate the detention order. The judgment reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards in preventive detention laws and emphasizes that the right to representation under Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980 must be effectively protected.

This judgment does not introduce a new position in law but reinforces the existing principle that procedural lapses in preventive detention cases can lead to the quashing of detention orders. It emphasizes the need for strict adherence to the procedural safeguards provided under the National Security Act, 1980.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court quashed the detention order against Devesh Chourasia, emphasizing the importance of procedural safeguards in preventive detention laws. The Court held that the delay in considering the detenu’s representation and the failure to communicate the decision in a timely manner violated the detenu’s rights under Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural lapses by the detaining authority can invalidate a detention order.