http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SMT. PREM LATA SHARMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MATHURA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       31/03/1998

BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Pursuant to  an order  dated April 26, 1997 made by the District Magistrate,  Mathura (hereinafter  referred to ‘the obtaining  authority’)  in  exercise  of  his  powers  under Section 3(3)  of the  National Security Act, 1980 (‘Act’ for short), Suresh  Chander Sharma,  a resident of Alwar Kunj in the city  of Vrindavan,  has been detained since May 5, 1997 with a  view to  prevent  him  from  acting  in  any  manner prejudicial to  the maintenance of public order. Against his detention he  made a  representation to the State Government on May  14, 1997  which was rejected on May 23, 1997. A copy of the  said representation,  along with para-wise comments, was forwarded by the State Government on May 21, 1997 to the Home  Secretary,   Government  of   India,  New   Delhi  for consideration. The  Central  Government  also  rejected  the representation of  the detenu on August 6, 1997. Thereafter, on August  22, 1997  the detenu made a representation to the Home   Secretary,   Government   of   India,   through   the Superintendent of Mathura Jail, where he is confined. By its letter  dated   August  26,  1997  the  detaining  authority informed the  detenu that  the representation  could not  be sent  to  the  Central  Government  as  it  was  made  after extraordinary delay.  The detaining  authority  pointed  out that according  to the  Rules the said representation should have been  made within  three weeks  from the  date  of  his detention. Thereafter,  the petitioner,  who happens  to  be wife of  the detenu,  filed this  petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus.      The only  point that  has been urged in support of this petition  is   that  the  detenu  has  a  right  to  make  a representation to the Central Government, independent of the representation he  made to the State Government, to pursuade the former  to  invoke  its  powers  of  revocation  of  the detention order  under Section  14 of  the Act  and that  by refusing  to   send  the   representation  to   the  Central Government the  detaining authority  has deprived him of his such right.      In  repudiating  the  above  contention  the  detaining authority relied  upon the  following averments  made in its supplementary counter affidavit:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    "That    the     copy    of     the      representation dated  14.5.1997 was      already forwarded for consideration      to the  Central Government  by  the      State       Government,       which      representation was  considered  and      rejected by the Central Government.      The said Detenue addressed a second      representation dated  22.8.1997  to      the  Secretary,   Home,  Govt.   of      India, New Delhi, since the earlier      representation     was      already      considered  and   rejected  by  the      Central Government on 6.8.1997. The      communication   about   which   was      already made  to the  said  detenue      through   the    Radiogram    dated      6.8.1997 from  the Ministry of Home      Affairs, New  Delhi served upon the      detenue through the Superintendent,      District Jail,  Mathura. Under  the      circumstances it was not considered      proper to  forward  the  subsequent      belated representation  made  after      four months  of the  passing of the      detention order.  The  detenue  was      accordingly  informed  vide  letter      dated 26.8.1997 of the deponent.      In our considered view the above stand of the detaining authority is  wholly  untenable:  firstly,  because  in  its letter dated  August  26,  1997  the  reason  given  by  the detaining authority  (mentioned earlier) for not sending the representation to  the  Central  Government  was  different; secondly, because  no Rules  referred to in that letter were brought to  our notice;  thirdly, because  there is no - nor can there  be - a period of limitation regarding exercise of a right  of a  detenu  to  make  a  representation  and  the corresponding  obligation   of  the  Central  Government  to consider  the   same  for  deciding  upon  the  question  of revocation of  the order  of detention,  for such  right and obligation subsist  so long  as the detention continues; and lastly, because  when the  representation was  made  to  the Central Government it was for it - and not for the detaining authority -  to decide  whether the representation should be rejected on  the ground  that his earlier representation had already been considered and rejected. To put it differently, when  the   representation  was  addressed  to  the  Central Governing it  was incumbent  on the  part of  the  detaining authority to  forward the same to the Central Government and not to take a pre-emptive action thereupon of its own.      For the  foregoing discussion,  it must  be  held  that refusal on  the part  of the detaining authority to send the representation of  the  detenu  to  the  Central  Government resulted in  denial of  the right  conferred  on  him  under Article 22(5)  of the Constitution of India to pursuade that Government to revoke the order of detention under Section 14 of the  Act and  on that  ground his continued detention has become illegal.  We, therefore,  allow this  petition, quash the impugned  order of  detention and direct that the detenu be released  forthwith unless  wanted in connection with any other case.