State govt can’t review or extend order under Section 12(1) of National Security Act: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad Excessive Courtroom whereas permitting a habeas corpus petition held that after an order below Part 12(1) of the Act, 1980 is handed by the State Authorities prescribing a interval of detention, the stated order can’t be reviewed or prolonged by the State Authorities.

The Division Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta handed this order whereas listening to a habeas corpus petition filed by Abdul Rahman Alias Nanni.

The petition has been filed looking for quashing of the detention order dated 12.07.2023 handed by the respondent no 2- District Justice of the Peace- Ghaziabad below Part 3(2) of the Nationwide Safety Act, 1980.

The details of the case are that the petitioner herein was detained vide order dated 12.7.2023 handed by the District Justice of the Peace- Ghaziabad below Part 3(2) of the Act, 1980 having been authorised below Part 3(3) of the Act, 1980. The stated order was accredited by the State Authorities below Part 3(4) of the Act, 1980 on 18.7.2023 and the matter was referred to the Advisory Board.

After receiving the report from the Advisory Board, the stated detention order was confirmed when it comes to Part 12 (1) of the Act, 1980 by the State Authorities on 2.8.2023 whereby the petitioner was detained for a interval of three months from the date of preliminary detention order i.e 12.7.2023.

The detention of the petitioner herein was once more prolonged vide order dated 6.10.2023 for a interval of six months from the date of preliminary detention and thereafter the detention of the petitioner has been prolonged on 9.1.2024 for a interval of 9 months from the date of preliminary detention.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that because the order dated 2.8.2023 handed below Part 12(1) of the Act, 1980 is a remaining order, the State has no proper to evaluation the stated order when it comes to provisions of Part 12 of the Act, 1980, subsequently, the order extending detention of the petitioner is with none authority of regulation and couldn’t be sustained.

Due to this fact, the detention of the petitioner herein when it comes to order dated 6.10.2023 and 9.1.2024 after the expiry of three months from the date of preliminary detention is prohibited and subsequently, the petitioner is liable to be launched forthwith.

Per contra, A.G.A submitted that in view of the judgement of the Apex Courtroom in Cherukuri Mani v State of A.P, reported in (2015) 13 SCC 722, the State Authorities couldn’t have handed an order of detention at a time for greater than a interval of three months, subsequently, initially the confirmatory order dated 2.8.2023 was handed for detention of the petitioner herein for a interval of three months and subsequently, the identical was prolonged vide order dated 6.10.2023 and 9.1.2024.

Due to this fact, there isn’t any illegality both within the preliminary detention order dated 12.7.2023 and the confirmatory order dated 2.8.2023 and the following extension orders dated 6.10.2023 and 9.1.2024.

The Courtroom noticed that,

The Courtroom has additionally just lately handled elaborately this subject in Habeas Corpus Petition (Niyaz Ansari Vs State of U.P and others) and in addition in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition (Sunil chachuda Vs State of U.P and others) and has following the judgement of the Supreme Courtroom in Pesala Nookaraju (supra) held that after the confirmatory order of detention handed below Part 12 (1) of the Act is a remaining order, the State Authorities has no authority to evaluation its order. If within the confirmatory order any specific interval of detention is prescribed by the State Authorities such detention order is legitimate just for that interval. If no interval of detention is prescribed in an order handed below Part 12 (1) of the Act, then, such detention will likely be for a most interval of 12 months as prescribed below Part 13 of the Act.

Nonetheless, as soon as an order below Part 12 (1) is handed by the State Authorities prescribing a interval of detention, the stated order can’t be reviewed or prolonged by the State Authorities. Such detention will likely be over after the expiry of the interval prescribed within the confirmatory order handed below Part 12(1) of the Act. The stated order can’t be reviewed or prolonged any additional. Nonetheless, the Detaining Authority i.e, the State Authorities or the District Justice of the Peace, could go a contemporary order when it comes to Part 3(2) of the Act, if the circumstances demand. Such a detention order needs to be confirmed once more following the process prescribed below Sections 3, 10, 11 and 12 of the Act.

“Within the case, the confirmatory order has been handed on 2.8.2023, whereby the petitioner herein was directed to be detained for a interval of three months from the preliminary detention order i.e 12.7.2023. Due to this fact, after the expiry of three months the petitioner’s detention turns into unlawful and he’s liable to be launched forthwith”, the Courtroom additional noticed whereas permitting the petition.

The Courtroom directed the petitioner-Abdul Rahman Alias Nanni to be launched forthwith, until he’s required in another case.