[NSA Detention] Delay in deciding detenue's representation fatal to detention: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday quashed the National Security Act (NSA) detention of a doctor accused of procuring fake Remdesevir injections in view of delays on the State's part in deciding on a representation filed by the detenue-doctor and the failure to communicate the rejection of such representation. (Sarabjit Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur & ors.).Unexplained delays in deciding on a detenue's representation and a failure to communicate a rejection of the same to the detenue in a timely manner are fatal to NSA detentions, the Supreme Court reiterated. .The Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, BV Nagarathna and Vikram Nath ultimately allowed the appeal moved by the doctor challenging the NSA detention order and the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to uphold such detention. ."The delay by the State Government in disposing of the representation and by the Central and State Government in communicating such rejection, strikes at the heart of the procedural rights and guarantees granted to the detenue ... The State Government cannot expect this Court to uphold its powers of subjective satisfaction to detain a person, while violating the procedural guarantees of the detenu that are fundamental to the laws of preventive detention enshrined in the Constitution," the Supreme Court said..The appellant-detenue, in this case, was the director of City Hospital, Jabalpur. He was detained under Section 3(2) (acts prejudicial to security and maintenance of public order) of the NSA for allegedly procuring and administering fake Remdesivir injections..The Bench observed that the issue at hand was whether the detenu's procedural rights emanating from Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 8 of the NSA were sufficiently protected..In this case, the State government had received the detenue-appellant's representation against his detention on May 18, 2021, which was rejected on June 24, 2021, after a delay of one and a half months. .The Bench opined that there was no reason for the State government to wait till the Advisory Board had submitted its order to decide on the appellant's representation. .It is well settled that while considering the detenue's representation, the State government's job is to examine whether the detention order is in conformity with the law, while the Advisory Board is to ascertain whether there is sufficient cause for detention in the light of the representation, the Supreme Court said.."As we have indicated on the basis of the precedents of this Court, the consideration of the representation by the State Government is qualitatively different from the reference to the Advisory Board. This Court, in Ankit Ashok Jalan (supra) had held that the State Government is not bound to wait on the Advisory Board’s report before deciding the representation and must do so, as expeditiously as possible," the judgment stated..It was also noted that the Assistant Attorney General (AAG), representing the State, could not furnish any proof to show that the detenu was given an intimation of the rejection of his representation. .The Court took a serious view that of the fact that the rejection of the detenue's representation was not communicated to him. The right of the detenu to make a representation under Article 22(4) of the Constitution would be rendered meaningless if s/he does not receive a timely notification on its status, be it an acceptance or rejection, the Court said.."Based on the precedents of this Court, we hold that the failure of the Central and the State Government to communicate the rejection of the appellant’s representation in a time-bound manner is sufficient to vitiate the order of detention," the Court ruled..The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the detention order. .[Read Judgment]