Supreme Court quashes detention order under National Security Act due to procedural lapses: Devesh Chourasia vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur (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. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

Can a detention order under the National Security Act be upheld if there are significant delays in processing the detenu’s representation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving an individual detained under the National Security Act, 1980. The court examined whether procedural lapses in considering and communicating the decision on the detenu’s representation could invalidate the detention order. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Dr. Justice D.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 detained under the National Security Act, 1980. The detention orders were based on allegations of their involvement in the procurement and administration of fake Remdesivir injections. The police in Gujarat had seized fake Remdesivir injections from a factory, and an FIR was registered. A co-accused, Devesh Chourasia, stated that Sarabjit Singh Mokha had procured the fake injections without a bill. These injections were allegedly administered to 50 patients at City Hospital on 30 April 2021. Prakhar Kohli, another individual, stated that he had sent the fake injections from Indore to Jabalpur on the request of Mokha’s son, and the injections were received by Chourasia on behalf of Mokha. Based on these allegations, detention orders were issued against both Chourasia and Mokha.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, Devesh Chourasia, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging his detention order under the National Security Act, 1980. This petition was heard along with a similar petition 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, citing procedural lapses. Following this, Devesh Chourasia also appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the same procedural lapses applied to his case as well.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980: This section deals with the power to make detention orders. It allows the government to detain a person if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so to prevent them from acting in any 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 the detenu the right to make a representation against the detention order. It also mandates that such representations should be considered expeditiously by the detaining authority. The section states:
  “In the case of a detention order made by a State Government or by an officer subordinate to a State Government, the State Government shall, within three weeks from the date of detention, forward to the Central Government a report in respect of the order, and the Central Government shall, within seven weeks from the date of detention, communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as are necessary to enable him to make a representation against the order.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that there was a significant delay in considering his representation against the detention order. The representation was made on 22 May 2021, but the Central Government rejected it only on 27 July 2021.
• The appellant contended that the decision on his representation was not communicated to him in a timely manner. The Central Government’s wireless message dated 27 July 2021 directed the SP to collect the detenu’s acknowledgement of receipt, but no such acknowledgement was acquired nor any such proof has been filed by the Respondents.
• The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Sarabjit Singh Mokha, where similar procedural lapses led to the quashing of the detention order.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents, representing the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Union of India, did not dispute the applicability of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Sarabjit Singh Mokha case to the present case.
• They did not provide any distinguishable features or counter-arguments to justify the delay in considering the representation or the failure to communicate the decision promptly.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the detenu was deprived of the right which emanates from the provisions of Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980, to have the representation considered expeditiously.
2. Whether the failure of the Central and State Governments to communicate the rejection of the representation in a time-bound manner would vitiate the order of detention.

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] – The Supreme Court of India had previously set aside the detention order of Sarabjit Singh Mokha, who was involved in the same incident. The court had noted that there was a delay in considering the representation and a failure to communicate the decision in a timely manner.
• Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980 – This provision mandates that representations against detention orders must be considered expeditiously.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the detention order and subsequent extensions. The court found that the grounds for detention and the procedural lapses were substantially similar to the Sarabjit Singh Mokha case. The court held that the delay in considering the 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.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Sarabjit Singh Mokha vs District Magistrate, Jabalpur [Criminal Appeal No 1301 of 2021]* The Supreme Court followed this judgment, noting the substantial similarities in the facts and procedural lapses.
• Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980 The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of expeditious consideration of representations and timely communication of decisions, as mandated by this provision.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural lapses in the detention process. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards provided under the National Security Act, 1980. The two main factors that weighed heavily on the court were:

1. Delay in considering the representation: The court noted that the delay by both the Central and State governments in processing the representation deprived the detenu of his valuable right to have his case considered expeditiously.
2. Failure to communicate the decision: The court highlighted that the failure to communicate the rejection of the representation in a timely manner further violated the detenu’s procedural rights.

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected any alternative interpretations that would have upheld the detention order, emphasizing the need to strictly adhere to procedural safeguards in cases of preventive detention. The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the established legal principles and the precedent set in the Sarabjit Singh Mokha case.

The court stated:

“By delaying its decision on the representation, the State Government deprived the detenu of the valuable right which emanates from the provisions of Section 8(1) of having the representation being considered expeditiously.”

“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”

“No distinguishable feature has been indicated in the counter affidavit which has been filed in these proceedings.”

Key Takeaways

• Detention orders under the National Security Act, 1980, must strictly adhere to procedural safeguards.
• Any delay in considering the detenu’s representation or failure to communicate the decision in a timely manner can invalidate the detention order.
• The detaining authorities must ensure that representations are processed expeditiously, as mandated by Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980.
• The judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and the protection of individual liberties, even in cases of preventive detention.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the detention order dated 11 May 2021, as well as the consequential extensions which were granted on 8 July 2020 and 30 September 2021. The court did not issue any other specific directions.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that any delay in considering the detenu’s representation or failure to communicate the decision in a timely manner violates Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980, and vitiates the detention order. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases and does not introduce new legal principles but rather applies existing principles to the facts of the case. There is no change in the previous position of law but a reiteration of the same.

Conclusion

In the case of Devesh Chourasia vs. The District Magistrate, Jabalpur, the Supreme Court quashed the detention order under the National Security Act, 1980, due to procedural lapses. The court emphasized 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 Act. The judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and the protection of individual liberties in cases of preventive detention.

Category

Preventive Detention

• National Security Act, 1980
• Section 3, National Security Act, 1980
• Section 8, National Security Act, 1980

FAQ

Q: What is the National Security Act, 1980?

A: The National Security Act, 1980, is a law that allows the government to detain individuals to prevent them from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the state or the maintenance of public order.

Q: What is Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980?

A: Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980, grants the detenu the right to make a representation against the detention order and mandates that such representations should be considered expeditiously.

Q: Why was the detention order in this case quashed?

A: The detention order was quashed because there was a delay in considering the detenu’s representation and a failure to communicate the decision on the representation in a timely manner.

Q: What does this judgment mean for future cases?

A: This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in cases of preventive detention. It means that detaining authorities must strictly adhere to the procedural safeguards provided under the National Security Act, 1980, and any lapses can invalidate the detention order.

Q: What should authorities do to comply with this judgment?

A: Authorities must ensure that representations against detention orders are processed expeditiously and that decisions on such representations are communicated to the detenu in a timely manner.