|
New Delhi:
Personal liberty is the "most precious and prized right"
guaranteed by the Indian constitution and it can't be taken away
without following the due procedure of law, says the Supreme
Court.
The court said this as a caution while holding that a person who
is already in custody could be ordered to remain in detention
(under the National Security Act) only if there was a real
possibility that his release on bail would lead to activities
prejudicial to public order.
Holding that "there is no prohibition in law to pass detention
order in respect of a person already in custody in respect of
criminal case", the apex court bench of Justice B.S. Chauhan and
Justice Dipak Misra said: "Personal liberty of a person is
sacrosanct and state cannot be permitted to take it away without
following the procedure prescribed by law..."
Pronouncing the verdict, Justice Chauhan said any encroachment on
personal liberty by the state without following the procedure
prescribed under law would violate the fundamental rights of the
constitution.
While permitting the courts to order detention of a person already
in jail, the court said that such an order could be passed only if
there was "reliable material" to believe that there was a real
possibility that his release on bail could affect public order.
The court said authorities could move for the detention order if
it was felt that it was necessary to prevent him from indulging in
activities prejudicial to public order.
However, the court said, "in case either of these facts does not
exist, the detention order would stand vitiati".
The court said this while setting aside the detention order passed
by the District Magistrate of Imphal West under the National
Security Act on June 30 last year.
The detention order was upheld by the Imphal bench of the Gauhati
High Court Jan 13, 2012.
The apex court's order came on an appeal by Huidrom Shantikumar
Singh, whose son was to be detained. The son was arrested June 19,
2011.
While passing the detention order, the district magistrate feared
that he would indulge in anti-national activities.
The accused was charged with extorting of money and giving shelter
to members of the outlawed Kangleipak Communist Party.
"Merely, because somebody else in similar cases had been granted
bail, there could be no presumption that in the instant case had
the detenu applied for bail could have been released on bail," the
court concluded.
"Thus, as the detenu in the instant case has not moved bail
application and no other co-accused, if any, had been enlarged on
bail, resorting to the National Security Act was not permissible.
Therefore, the impugned order of detention is based on mere ipse
dixit (unsupported assertion) (and) detention cannot be sustained
in the eyes of law," the ruling said.
(Pramod Kumar can be contacted at saneel2010@gmail.com)
|
Comments
|
Quick links