A person cannot be held under preventive detention without sufficient cause as it would be violative of his or her fundamental right of right to liberty, the Supreme Court has held.
Setting aside the detention order passed against Ranjit Oinamcha @ Oinam, Editor of a Manipur daily under the National Security Act, the apex court said such orders are liable to judicial scrutinty if they are found to be passed in an arbitrary manner. "The court is entitled to scrutinize the material relied upon by the authorities in coming to its conclusion and accordingly determine if there is an objective basis for the subjective satisfaction.
"The objective satisfaction must be two fold.
The detaining authority must be satisfied that the person to be detained is likely to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and the authorities must be further satisfied that it is necessary to detain the said person in order to prevent from so acting," a Bench of Justices D K Jain and H L Dattu said in a judgement.
In the case in point, Ranjit, Editor of `Paojel' having its printing press at Keisamthing Top Leirak, Manipur, was detained under the NSA by an order dated September 24, 2009. He was charged with indulging in anti-national activities on the ground that he was extorting money from various people in collusion with Ratan alias Inao alias N. Ibochouba Singh, finance in-charge of the United National Liberation Front (UNLF),Imphal West, which is fighting for independence from India.
The Guwhati High Court had dismissed the petition filed by Singh's wife Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi on his behalf, after which she appealed in the apex court. Upholding her appeal, the apex court said the authorities could not produce any document or sufficient material that could substantiate the order of detention. The apex court said there was also considerable delay by Manipur government in forwarding the representation made by Singh to the central government against his detention as mandated under the Act.
"None of the other documents substantiate the involvement of the detenu in unlawful activities as alleged in the detention order. Thus, it is clear that there was no pertinent or relevant material on the basis of which the detention order could be passed.
"The second issue is that of delay. There has been a delay of 7 days(from 09/10/2009 to 16/10/2009), in forwarding the representation of the detenu to the central government.There has been no explanation of the reasons for this delay given by the respondents, the Bench said.