KHAIDEM IBOCHA SINGH ETC. v. STATE OF MANIPUR
Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 1022; 1971 INSC 279
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM , P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW
Judgment date:
Case summary
1971 INSC 279. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1971-10-08. KHAIDEM IBOCHA SINGH ETC. v. STATE OF MANIPUR. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS KHAIDEM IBOCHA SINGH ETC. V. STATE OF MANIPUR October 8, 1971 [C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND . K. K. MATHEW, JJ. ] Preventive detention under Orissa Preventive Detention Act, 1970--o"elay in considering represcnta'tions to Sta~ Government-Eff_ect on de-t/Mtion orders-Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 22(5)-lf violated. The petitioners were detained by orders of detention under the Orissa Preventive Detention Act, 1970, and the grounds of detention were furnished to them on tbo same day. They sent a representation to the State Government, and the State Government rejected it 17 days late\". The petitioners challeng•d the validity of the order of detention under Art. 32 on the allegation that the del~y cvnstituted a v:olation of their right under Art. 22(5). Allowing the petitions.
HELD : There has been an uruoxplained delay of 17 days in disposing of the representation of the detenus, and consequently, the\"e has been a nolation of the constitutional right guarante. od under Art. 22(5) to the petitioners. ·[1030 A-Bl The question whether there is delay in dispoiing of the representation made by a detenu and if so whether that delay has been properly explained by the State will have to be gathered f\-om all the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In the present case, the respondent did not state what steps were taken from the date of receiving the reprewntation to the date of rejecting it, excepting making a very bald statement that inquiries were sought from jail autholr:ties through the sub-deputy collector, and that the jail authorities sent a letter two days before rejecting the representation.
There is no averment in the counter affidavit that the inquiries were made drally, and in the absence of such an averment it is reasonable to presume that being an official matter there would be some correspondence. But ne:ther the "details of any enquiries made, nor the correspondence, were referred to or disclosed. [1029 E-H] Durga Show etc. v. State of West Bengal, W. P. Nos. 198, 205/69 etc. dated 2-9-1969, Khairul Haque v. State of West Bengal, W. P. No. 246/ 69 dated 10-9-1969, Prr,bhakar Shankar Dhuri v. Sh. S. G. Prashan & Ors. , W. P. No. 514170 dated 18-12-1970 and Jcyanarayan Sukul v. State of Wes~ Bengal, [1970] 3 S. C. R. 225. followed. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 289 to 295 of 1971. Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for writs in the ,nature of habeas corpus. S. C. Manchanda, 0. P. Verma and Petitioners were also present, for the petitioners (in all the petitions). [ R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent (i,n all the petitions). K. I.
SINGH V. MANIPUR (Vaidialingam, J. ) 1923 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. The seven petitioners in these writ petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution, challenge the validity of the orders of detention dated January 31, 1971 passed against each of them by the District Magistrate, Manipur (Central) under sub-fl s. ( 2) of s. 3 read with sub-s. ( 1) of the Orissa Preventive Detention Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as extended to Manipur. They seek relief for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus and for directions being i>sued to the respondent-the State of Manipur to release them from custody. ' The orders of detention state that they have been passed with a view to preventing the petitioners from acting in any manner 1 prejudicial to the maintenance of pu'b ic order. ·The petitioners, in consequence of these orders, were taken into custody and detained. Along with the petitioners another person, Prof. Nandlal Sharma, was also detained.
The grounds of detention, as required by s. 7 ( 1 ) of the Act were furnished to the detenus on the same I) day. The order of detention passed against Prof. Nandlal Sharma was later on revoked by the Lt. Governor and he was released. The petitioners, in Writ Petitions . Nos. 289, 290, 291 and 295 of 1971 are either Masters of Arts (In Poiitical Science) or Master of Arts, Education and are all Professors of Colleges of Moirang or Imphal. The petitioner in W•it Petition No. 294 of 1971 holds r, M. Sc. , B. Ed. , degrees and is an Assistant Head Master in a H'gh School in Imphal. The educational qualifications of the petitioner in Writ petitions Nos. 292 and 293 are not clear from the records but they claim to be socral workers. The District Magistrate made the necessary report to the Admi- 1' nistrator under sub-section (3) of s. 3. On February 10, 1971, the Administrator under s.
3 ( 3) approved the orders of detention passed by the District Magist·ate on January 31, 1971 and the orders of approval were also communicated to the detenus. All the petitioners made a joint representition on March l, 1971, which was received by the Government on March 3, 1971. In the represe,ntation, the petitione•s had raised various grounds 1 of attack against the order of detention. They had also very e abo-rately dealt with them and very strenuously refuted the vario~s allegations contained in the grounds served on them, on the basis of which the orders of detention had been pas,ed. The Administrator considered the representa•ion received from the detenus and rejected the same on rMarch 20, . 1971. The petitioners were in-formed about the rejection of the representation by communication dated March 22, 1971. The ca,es of rthe petitioners were referred to the Advisory Board on February 16, 1971 as required under [ 1972] I S. C. R. I s. 9 of the Act.
The Advisory Board considered the matter and sent its report on April 18. 1971 expressing its opinion that the detention of the petitioners was justified. We may mention at this stage that the various dates given above are all taken from the counter-affidavit filed by the Secretary to the Government of Marnpur, on behalf of the respc1ndent. We are mentioning this I aspect because there is a slight discrepency in the dates given by the petitioners. That is why we have chosen to adopt the dates given on behalf of the State itself. On behal,f of the petitioners Mr. S. C. Manchanda, has raised various grounds of attack against the orders of detention passed by the State Government. The counsel very strenuously urged that the matters mentioned in the grounds furnished to the peti. ioners ftre absolutely false.
According to him the petitioners are all educated persons and that they have been only writing articles pleading for improving the lot of the people of Manipur and for giv~ng due recognition to the hopes and aspirations of the people of Manipur. The counsel has also urged that the grounds of detention are all vague and it was not possible for the detenus to make any effective representation against such vague allegations. The counsel furth~r urged that in any event, there. has been an inordinate delay of 17 days in the Administrator disposing of the representation made by the petitioners and as such there has been a violation of Art. 22 ( 5) of the Constitution. Therefore, the detention orders will have to be struck dow1n even on this short ground. On the other hand, according to the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, all the petitioners are active members of the Pan Manipuri Youth League which is "an Over-ground Organisation of the Under-ground insurgents in Manipur.
" The petitioners have been . publishing various matters in books and patnphJe·s with a view to create an atmosphere of distrust, hatred, disaffection and disloyalty in the minds of the people of Manipur. It is further urged that the petitioners, along with others were having secret meetings and using their influence as Professors and Teachers to incite the students to indulge in violent activities and take up arms against the Government. The respondent also urged that full 1 particu ars regarding the date, time and place, whe,re the meetings were held or violent activities took place have all been very clearly given in the grounds of detention. As will be seen from the elaborate representation made by them, the petitioners can have no grievance that the irrounds were vague. The representation deals with every one of the matters mentioned in the grounds. Even othet\vise, if there was anv vagueness in all or lilly of ihe ii gmunds.
it was open to the petitioners to have asked f al bv the Sta•e of their •eore,entation and hence ·there has been a vi"lation of Art. 22(5) of the constitution. The petitioners have further pleaded that anv time that mav have been taken to collect informati"n about Prof. N•ndlal Sharma can. not I ·operate to the preiudice of the oe•itioners. Thev have al'o plea . ndly, the consideration of the representation of the detenu by the appropriate autho-ity is entire'y independent of any action by the Advisory Board including the consideration of the representation of the detenu bv •he Advisory Board. Thirdly, there should not be any delay in the matter of consideration. It is true that no ha•d • and fast rule can be laid down as to the measure of time taken by the appropriate authority for consi ~e-ation but it has to be remembered that the Government has to be vigilant in the governance of the citizens. A citizen's right raises a correlative duty of the S'ate.
Fourthly, the appropriate Government is to exerci'e its opinion and judgment on the representation before sending the case along with the detenu's representation to th;: Advisory Board. If the appropriate Government will re'ease the detenu the Government will not send the matter to the Advisory Board. If however the Government will not release the dete,nu the Government will send the case along with the detenu's repre,entation to the Advisory Board. If thereafter the Advisory Board will express an " (I) W. P. No. 246 of 1969 decided on 10-9-1969. K. J. SINGH v. MANIPUR (Vaidia/ingam, J. ) 1033' opinion in favour of release of the detenu the Govern-m~nt will release ~h~ detenu. If the Advisory Board wtll express any opm1on against the release of the detenu the Government may still exercise the power to releas~ the detenu. " Finally, it was held that the Government was guilty of infra-action of the constitutional provisions by an inordinate delay in the c.
onsideration of the representation and that there was no explana-t10n offered for the inordinate delay. Ultimately, the detenu was directed to be set at liberty. The various decisions, referred to above, no doubt deal with detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, but the provisions of the Act, with which we are dealing, in all materi :; released. We accordingly hold that the detention of the petitioners is illegal and make the rule issued in a11 these writ petitions absolute and direct the release of the petitioners forthwith unless they are required in connection with any other ca'. e. V. P. S . Petitions allowed. . ' 14-Ll ! 9SupCl/72
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.