W.P.(Crl.)/14/2022 of MD. UMAR Vs STATE OF MANIPUR AND 2 OTHERS on 22 December 2022

1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Special Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat, South Block, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District: Imphal West, Manipur-795001. (Home), Govt. of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat, South Block, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District: Imphal West, Manipur-795001.

2. The Union of India represented by Secretary (Finance), Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, North New-Delhi-110001. of India, Ministry of Finance, North New-Delhi-110001.

Block,

3. The Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, Manipur-795114. Manipur-795114.

Sajiwa,

P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Porompat, District: Imphal East, Respondents BEFORE

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN

For the Petitioner

For Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 For Respondent No. 2

Date of Order

: Mr. L. Shashibhushan, Advocate

: Mr. Athouba Khaidem , G.A.

: Mr. S. Samarjeet, Sr.PCCG

: 22.12.2022

ORDER (ORAL)

Sanjay Kumar (C.J.):

[1]Challenge in this writ petition is to the order of detention dated 21.09.2022 of the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, whereby the petitioner was subjected to preventive detention in exercise of power under section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.

[2]Heard Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 3; and Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned Sr. PCCG, appearing for respondent No. 2.

[3]The main ground of attack against order of detention is that the representation dated 10.10.2022 made by the petitioner was not disposed of till 15.11.2022.

[4]The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, did not shed any light on the time taken for disposal of the representation.

[5] The file of the detaining authority was produced before the Court by Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned Government Advocate. However, perusal thereof reflects no tenable explanation is discernible therein also. The representation was forwarded by the Inspector General of Prisons, Manipur, to the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, on 12.10.2022 and was received on the very same day. Letter dated 14.10.2022 was addressed by the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, to the Director General of Police calling for para-wise comments on the said representation. The para-wise comments were furnished by the Superintendent of Police, Imphal East District, to the Home Department on 20.10.2022. The same resulted in the rejection of the representation only on 15.11.2022. No reason is forthcoming from the file as to why the matter was kept pending for so long after receipt of the para-wise comments. Such delay in the disposal of the representation made by the detenu is fatal to the very validity and continuance of the detention order.

[6]Though it is laudable that the Government of Manipur is waging a ‘war on drugs’ and initiating stringent measures to arrest the menace of illicit drug trafficking and marketing in and through the State of Manipur, it is equally its responsibility to ensure that the procedural safeguards provided in preventive detention laws are scrupulously adhered to so as to protect the Constitutional and statutory rights of persons detained thereunder. Despite this Court stating to this effect time and again, scant regard is shown by the authorities concerned to compliance with the prescribed norms.

[7]In Rajammal vs. State of T.N. and another [(1999) 1 SCC 417], the Supreme Court observed that if delay is caused in consideration of the detenu’s representation owing to indifference or any other lapse, such delay would adversely affect further detention of the prisoner. According to the Supreme Court, it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposing of the representation and it is not enough to say that the delay is very short, as even longer delay can as well be explained and so, the test is not the duration or range of delay, but how it is explained by the authority concerned. Be it noted that the unexplained delay in that case was a mere 5 days.

[8]Earlier, in Professor Khaidem Ibocha Singh vs. The State of Manipur [AIR 1972 Supreme Court 438], the Supreme Court set aside an order of detention on the ground that there was unexplained delay of 17 days in the passing of an order on the representation made by the detenu.

[9] More recently, in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. The District Magistrate, Jabalpur, and others [(Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2021, decided on 29.10.2021 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1019], the Supreme Court held that by delaying a decision on such representation, the State Government denied the detenu a valuable statutory right. The Supreme Court observed that the delay by the State Government in disposing of such representation strikes at the heart of the procedural rights and guarantees granted to a detenu.

[10]The order of detention dated 21.09.2022 issued by the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, is accordingly set aside. All consequential proceedings based thereon shall also stand set aside. The petitioner, Md. Umar, presently incarcerated in Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa, shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his continued incarceration is validly required in connection with any other case.

WP (Cril.) No. 14 of 2022 is accordingly allowed.

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

A copy of this order shall be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, for information and necessary further action in the context of educating the detaining authorities in the State of Manipur as to what are the procedural norms that they need to adhere to while exercising power under preventive detention laws.

Sapana

JUDGE

CHIEF JUSTICE