New Delhi: The Allahabad high court has quashed the detention orders against six persons issued by the district administration of Mau in Uttar Pradesh after their alleged participation in a violent demonstration against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) on December 16, 2019.
The division bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Sadhna Rani (Thakur) held that “per the mandate of Section 10 of the National Security Act, the Government is required to send all relevant material within three weeks, but in the instant case it was sent to the Advisory Board on September 28, when the three week period had already passed”.
In view of the delay, the court found the detention to be “illegal”. It observed in the order:
“Having considered the mandate of Article 22(5) read with Section 10 of the National Security Act, we find in the facts of the instant case that the deadline for placing all papers, i.e., the ground of detention, the representation and the report of the detaining authority before the Advisory Board had not been adhered to by the State Government. The non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 10 of the NSA renders the detention orders illegal.”
Petitioners move court against detention orders
The habeas corpus pleas had sought quashing of the detention orders issued by the district magistrate of Mau against the six petitioners. The petitioners had also sought quashing of the state government’s order extending their detention period for a further period of three months.
It was submitted before the court that on December 16, 2019, a violent protest took place against the NRC and CAA laws following which an FIR (first information report) was registered in the matter against several persons, including the petitioners.
Also read: SC Bars UP Govt From Acting on Earlier Notices to Anti-CAA ‘Protesters’ for Damages
The circle officer of Mau city had upon perusal of the report of the inspector in-charge of the police station, where the FIR was lodged, recommended forwarding the report to the higher authority. The report was then forwarded to the district magistrate of Mau by the superintendent of police with his recommendation for taking action under the NSA against the petitioners.
The district magistrate of Mau then considered the entire material and recorded his subjective satisfaction while passing the detention orders on September 3, 2020. He invoked the powers under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act while doing so. On the same day, the petitioners were served with the grounds of detention along with other relevant material.
‘Detention to restore law and order’
According to the district magistrate of Mau, the petitioners were detained under the NSA in order to restore the peace and maintain law and order.
UP Police beat up anti-CAA protestors in Lucknow. Photo: PTI.
It was alleged that the accused were making efforts to get bail in the criminal cases lodged against them under the Gangster Act by moving bail applications in the Allahabad high court and therefore it was deemed necessary that they be detained.
The representation by the petitioners was made with the DM the following day, on September 14, 2020, and the para wise comments in respect of these were sent to the concerned authority on September 14, 2020. The detention order was then sent to the Advisory Board on September 28 in accordance with Section 10 of the NSA.
‘Timelines not complied with’
The high court also rejected the argument of the Uttar Pradesh government that the report was submitted by the Advisory Board within the prescribed period of seven weeks from the date of detention of the petitioners and therefore Section 11(1) of the Act had been complied with in the present case.
To this argument, the court said: “The maximum period prescribed under Section 11(1) to submit the report by the Advisory Board to the appropriate Government cannot be taken to condone the delay on the part of the State Government, in placing the matter before the Board which in turn had occurred on account of the delay caused at the ends of the District Magistrate, Mau/the detaining authority.”
It added, “The deadline for the action of every authority at every stage of the decision making process has been fixed under the Act in order to meet the constitutional obligation under Article 22(5) of the concerned authority/Government.”
The court also held that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the district magistrate to arrive at the conclusion of detaining the petitioners was not based on any relevant material which would form an objective criterion to arrive at the decision.
Allahabad high court calls out abuse of NSA
Incidentally, the Allahabad high court on several occasions in the past called out the abuse of NSA in Uttar Pradesh.
An investigation by the Indian Express had in April this year revealed how between January 2018 and December 2020, the court had quashed 94 detentions in 120 habeas corpus petitions that challenged preventive detention under the NSA.
Also read: Allahabad HC Quashed All 20 ‘Communal Incident’ NSA Orders Between 2018 and 2020: Report
The report had revealed that the high court had quashed orders of district magistrates in 32 districts while setting aside the detentions. In most of the cases, 41 out of 94, the NSA had been invoked for cow slaughter. Also, all the accused were found to be from the minority community in these cases.
It was also revealed by the report that in 30 cases, the high court had slammed the state administration and called for the immediate release of the detainees.
The court had in 11 detentions ruled that there was “non-application of mind” by the district magistrates while passing the order. In 13 cases, it found that the detained person was denied the opportunity to represent himself effectively while challenging the NSA, In seven cases, it said there was no need to invoke the NSA as the cases came under the ambit of ‘law and order’. And in the case of six other cases, it noted that the NSA was invoked on the basis of a solitary case despite the accused not having any criminal antecedents.
