Personal liberty can't be taken away even temporarily without following procedure under law: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday emphasised that the right to personal liberty and individual's freedom is probably the most cherished right and cannot be taken away even temporarily without following the procedure established by law [State of Manipur vs B Abdul Hanan and anr]..A Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar, therefore, held that a detention order is illegal if its grounds do not meet the rigours of proof at the outset. " ... the right of personal liberty and individual freedom which is probably the most cherished is not, in any manner, arbitrarily to be taken away from him [the instant respondent] even temporarily without following the procedure prescribed by law and once the detenu was able to satisfy while assailing the order of detention before the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction Article 226 of the Constitution holding that the grounds of detention did not satisfy the rigors of proof as a foundational effect ... the same renders the order of detention illegal," the Court said. The top court, thus, upheld a Manipur High Court order that had set aside the present respondent's preventive detention in connection with a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). .The respondent B Abdul Hanan was released from preventive detention after the High Court in October last year, had noted that the concerned detaining authority had failed to supply legible copies of documents relied upon while passing the detention order. Further, it had noted that Hanan was kept in detention for over a year which was the upper limit as per the law. The State conceded that providing legible copies of documents relied upon is an essential condition to make such representation that is a fundamental right of detenus, under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.The argument by the counsel for the State government was that the respondent had not raised any objection at any stage before the detaining authority that the pages of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention were illegible or blurred, thereby, denying him the opportunity of making representation. Such an objection, it was contended, was raised for the first time before the High Court. The Bench noted the submission of the parties and dismissed the appeal by the State. .Advocates Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Anupam Ngangom, and Wahengbam Immanuel Meitei represented the State government. Advocate Prerna Singh was the Amicus Curiae and supported the High Court order. [Read Judgment]