Explore a legal case where the court’s meticulous legal analysis centered around ensuring procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases. The emphasis was on upholding the detenu’s rights under the Constitution and relevant statute, highlighting the critical need for transparency and adherence to timelines in detention matters. Dive deeper into the intricacies of procedural fairness and its impact on the validity of detentions.
Facts
- The detention order dated 11 May 2021 lacked a live or proximate link with the present allegations.
- The order of detention was approved by the State Government on 13 May 2021 and submitted to the Central Government on the same day.
- The extension of the detention order on 15 July 2021 and 30 September 2021 was based on vague and unjustifiable grounds.
- The appellant’s health condition, including testing positive for Covid-19 and suffering a heart attack on 6 May 2021, was not considered before detention on 12 May 2021.
- Failure to comply with the detenu’s request for onward transmission of representation to the Central Government deprived the detenu of the right to have the detention revoked.
- Observations by the High Court indicated that there was no undue delay in sending the detention order to the State Government, and the order of detention was not passed mechanically.
- The appellant’s representation against the detention order was not properly responded to by the State Government and Central Government.
- Delay in considering the detenu’s representation was highlighted as potentially fatal to the detention order.
- The appellant, a Director of City Hospital, Jabalpur, was involved in the procurement and administration of fake Remdesivir injections during the Covid-19 pandemic.
- Allegations claim that the appellant procured 500 fake injections worth Rs.15 lakhs through fake bills from a manufacturing company in Gujarat.
- The appellant was detained under the NSA on 12 May 2021 following orders from the District Magistrate and SP in Jabalpur.
- Public outcry and potential disturbance of public order were reported due to the appellant’s actions.
- The Central Government rejected the appellant’s representation on 24 June 2021 regarding the detention order.
- The appellant’s criminal antecedents include acquittal in some cases due to ‘money power’.
- Spurious injections led to untimely deaths and casualties, causing public anger and resentment.
- The appellant was alleged to have procured the fake injections through a person named Prakhar Kohli from Indore, received by a co-accused, Devesh Chaurasia.
- The Central Government took over a month to consider and reject the appellant’s representation against detention.
- Fake injections were administered to patients at City Hospital, endangering public health during the pandemic.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Issue
- Consideration of whether procedural rights of the detenu under Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 8 of the NSA were adequately protected.
- Determination of the level of protection afforded to the detenu in the present case.
- Analysis of the adherence to procedural safeguards in the detention of the individual.
- Evaluation of the impact of any potential shortcomings in safeguarding the detenu’s rights on the validity of the detention.
- Review of the legal framework and applicable provisions in relation to the procedural rights of the detenu.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Arguments
- Appellant relied on previous court decisions and a High Court decision to argue against detention based on media outrage or public agitation.
- Appellant’s conduct as the owner of a specialty hospital selling spurious drugs caused public outcry and media outrage.
- Dr. B R Ambedkar emphasized the necessity of preventive detention in current circumstances.
- The NSA is a complete code with safeguards for the detenu.
- The District Magistrate’s detention order was communicated to the appellant on the same day as per the NSA’s requirement.
- The communication of the detention order was within the five-day limit specified in Section 8(2) of the NSA.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Analysis
- The Court held that there was an inordinate delay in considering the representation of the petitioner.
- The time imperative for consideration of representation can never be absolute or obsessive.
- Justice AD Koshal held the unexplained delay as fatal to the detention.
- Stale reliance on past antecedents to justify detention is in breach of this Court’s decisions.
- The detention is based on a solitary action and ought to be set aside.
- A mere apprehension of the grant of bail in the FIR cannot be the cause for detention.
- There is no substantial evidence of death/harm due to the allegedly fake Remdesivir injections procured by the appellant.
- The analysis focuses on the failure of the Central and State Government to timely consider the appellant’s representation dated 18 May 2021.
- The delay in disposing of the representation and rejecting it strikes at the procedural rights and guarantees of the detenu.
- The communication of rejection of representation is crucial for determining the delay protected under Article 22(5).
- The State Government’s rejection of the representation after the Advisory Board decision highlights a delay in the process.
- The law provides procedural safeguards to balance executive powers under the NSA.
- The detaining authority’s satisfaction is not justiciable, but the immediacy requirement for representation consideration is upheld.
- Communication of grounds and timely consideration of representation are fundamental to preventive detention laws.
- The failure to communicate rejection to the detenu undermines their right to understand the reasons for detention.
- The rejection of representation must be mandatorily communicated to the detenu for transparency and procedural fairness.
- Article 22(5) of the Constitution mandates communication of grounds for detention to the person detained
- Section 3(5) requires reporting of detention order to the Central Government within seven days
- Section 8 of the NSA governs the disclosure of grounds of detention
- Section 8(1) specifies the timeline for communication of grounds and opportunity for representation
- Section 10 mandates reference to the Advisory Board within three days of detention
- Advisory Board’s opinion on detention is subject to approval by the appropriate government
- The order of detention was invalidated due to unexplained delay by the State Government in deciding the representation and failure to communicate rejection in a timely manner.
- The appellant succeeded on the violation of procedural rights under the Constitution and statute.
- Other grounds of challenge were not considered as the appellant’s procedural rights were violated.
- Extensions issued on 15 July 2021 and 30 September 2021 were based on the original order of detention dated 11 May 2021.
- Both parties presented arguments on the merits of the order of detention during the proceedings.
Decision
- The appeal is allowed
- The order of detention dated 11 May 2021 and extensions dated 15 July 2021 and 30 September 2021 are quashed and set aside
- Pending application(s) are disposed of
- The High Court judgment dated 24 August 2021 is set aside
Case Title: SARABJEET SINGH MOKHA Vs. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JABALPUR (2021 INSC 702)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001301-001301 / 2021
