HC quashes order for Detention under NSA after 5 were detained for Muharram Procession [Read Judgment]

The Madhya Pradesh high court with a division bench consisting of justices S.C.Sharma and Shailendra Shukla, considering a writ petition against detention orders under the national security act,1980, struck down the detention orders by the district magistrate, condemning  the magistrate on making his opinions through “media trials”

FACTS AND ARGUMENTS

The petitioner’s father was arrested on 31/08/2020 on the grounds of detention and the detention order was passed by the district magistrate. The petitioner’s counsel argued that older cases were referred for the detention order and there were no new cases in the record of the petitioner’s father since 2007.it was also argued by them that since the order of detention was not confirmed by the state under section 3(4) of the NSA the detention order was no longer applicable. The AAG, on the other hand, argued for the respondents that the petitioner’s father collected the crowd and created a dangerous situation for public law and order keeping in view the COVID-19 situation and further argued that old cases can be looked into and any isolated act can also attract NSA.

THE COURT’S FINDINGS

 The court observed that the order passed by the magistrate was based upon the violation of section 144 of CrPC and alleged commission of offenses under section 188, 269, and 270 of IPC by the petitioner’s father relying on newspaper clippings. The court criticized the magistrate for forming his opinions on newspaper clippings rather than any cogent material and called out the magistrate by stating  “The order passed by the District Magistrate refers to news published in Nai Duniya, Dainik Bhaskar, Peoples Samachar. The District Magistrate has formed his opinion on the basis of media trial. It is unfortunate that media trial has become very common these days and now the adjudicating authorities are delivering their judgments based upon media trials. Resultantly, there appears to be total non-application of mind on the part of the District Magistrate in passing the impugned order.”

The court further relied on the union of India Vs Paul Manickam quoting “preventive detention involves a serious encroachment on the right of personal liberty. The law of preventive detention is strictly construed, and compliance with procedural safeguards is insisted upon” and further mentioned the supreme court case of Icchu Devi Vs Union of India where the person in detention was released due to irregularities and delay in the process by the authorities. After finding lacking grounds and material for the detention and since there was no confirmation of the detention from the state, it was in violation of the NSA section 3(4) to keep the petitioner’s father in further detention. Keeping in view all the factors the court called out the district magistrate for non-application of mind and quashed the order of detention.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com