Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anurag Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37439
1 WP-9785-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 9785 of 2025
ANURAG THAKUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate with Shri Nishank Pal Verma, Advocate for
the petitioner.
Shri Anubhav Jain - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This petition is filed challenging the order of the District Magistrate,
Jabalpur dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the petitioner was
subjected to detention of three (03) months, then thereafter the period has
been enhanced from time to time but fact of the matter is that this order dated
28.11.2024 was confirmed by the State Government vide order dated
05.12.2024 and in terms of provisions contained in sub-section (5) of
Section 3 of the N.S.A. Act order of confirmation should have been
communicated to the Central Government within seven days thereof.
2. It is pointed out by Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel, and
admitted by Shri Anubhav Jain, learned Government Advocate, that
admittedly communication was sent to the Central Government on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37439
2 WP-9785-2025
17.12.2024, for which, he places reliance on the postal receipt which has
been forwarded to him by the State Government. Reference is made to the
communication made by Dr.Ichhit Garpale Deputy Secretary, Government
of M.P, Department of Home vide dispatch F-31-195/2024/Two-C-1
addressed to the City Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur dated 22.7.2025
wherein he has enclosed postal receipt dated 17.12.2024 bearing No.E-
171107532 dispatched from Mantralyaya, Bhopal having weight of 125 gms.
at 12.35 hours from Counter No.1 of the Post Office at Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal.
3. In view of such facts it is argued that since there is violation of
sub-section (5) of Section 3 of NSA Act, therefore, impugned order of
detention and then subsequent renewal cannot be upheld.
4. Shri Anubhav Jain, learned Government Advocate, in his turn,
places reliance on the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal
No.880/2018 [Omkar Mahole Vs. State of M.P. ] decided on 04.10.2018 and
submits that such provision which entrusts the State Government to make
certain communications are directory and not mandatory. He further
submitted that in case of Omkar Mahole the Division Bench of this Court has
referred the matter to Full Bench expressing their reservation with the views
of two Division Bench judgments of this Court at Gwalior Bench in Santosh
Raghuvanshi v. State of M.P., 2013 (11) MPWN 28 and Dhanwanti v. State
of M.P. and others , 2013 (1) MPLJ 549 and thus referred the following
question for opinion of the Larger Bench:-
"Whether the provisions of Section 40 of the M.P.
Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37439
3 WP-9785-2025
fixing the time limit for completion of inquiry against
the office-bearer of Panchayat are mandatory provisions
or directory provisions?"
5. In this backdrop, Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in paragraph
20 of its judgment made reference to the judgment of Supreme Court in the
case of Dr.Ram Singh Saini v. Dr. H.N. Bhargava , (1975)4 SCC 676 and
ultimately held that such provisions are directory and not mandatory.
6. When we asked Shri Anubhav Jain, learned Government
Advocate that what will be the yardstick to apply the principles of statutory
interpretation to an issue arising out of interpretation of statute having civil
consequences vis-à-vis statute having criminal consequence, he submits that
in both the cases, same consequences will follow.
7. At this stage, Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel has
handedover judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2695/2019
[Akash Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & others ] decided on 12.4.2019, so also
another decision of Division Bench in Vivek Khurana Vs. State of M.P. and
others in W.P.No.1362/2020 decided on 20.5.2020 and submits that in case
of Akash Yadav (supra) the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 27(x)
held that "compliance of sub-section (5) of Section 3 and Section 8 are
mandatory. Non-compliance would vitiate the order. Same is the ratio of law
laid down by another Division Bench in Vivek Khurana (supra) wherein the
Hon'ble Division Bench has stated that "communication of the approval to
the Central Government under section 3(5), relating to detenu's detention
under the NSA is not an empty formality but a solemn act to ensure that the
Central Government is in a position to appreciate the necessity of detaining
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37439
4 WP-9785-2025
the petitioner under section 3(2) of the NSA Act". The non-dispatch of the
grounds of detention of the Central Government can render further detention
unlawful. In this case, the State has not filed any document to reveal that (a)
approval of the State Government dated 10/01/2020 has been dispatched to
the Central Government as mandated under section 3(5) of the NSA and (b)
if sent, whether the said intimation included the grounds of detention
pertaining to the petitioner here". Thereafter, it is held that when there is no
compliance of section 3(5) of the NSA Act then it will render the impugned
order of detention bad in law and had accordingly quashed the order of
detention.
8. Thus, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going
through the case laws filed by the rival parties we are of the opinion that
parameters for interpreting provisions of civil law vis-à-vis a criminal law are
different. In case of interpretation of a criminal law or a law having
consequences towards life and liberty of an individual, the approach has to
be strictly technical and strict adherence of the statute is mandatory. Thus,
the judgment of Hon'ble Full Bench in Writ Appeal No.880/2018 has no or
little persuasive value in the present case when we are dealing with a statute
having not only civil consequences but largely criminal consequences
amounting to taking away of life and liberty of an individual. Therefore,
being supported with the judgments of Division Bench in Vivek Khurana's
case and Akash Yadav's case we hold that non-compliance of provisions of
section 3(5) of the NSA Act, being mandatory, having been admittedly not
made by the State Government, then impugned order of detention dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37439
5 WP-9785-2025
28.11.2024 and all consequential orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of
law. They are set aside. The writ petition is allowed.
9. The State is directed to pay the cost of Rs.50,000/- through
Account Payee Cheque or through NEFT transfer in the account of
petitioner-Anurag Thakur for keeping his life and liberty suspended dehors
the legal provisions. This cost be deposited by the State within 15 days from
today, for which learned counsel for the petitioner shall furnish bank account
details like account number, IFSC Code, etc. during course of the day to the
learned Government Advocate, with an acknowledgement from the Office of
Advocate General.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
RM
