Blackmarketing Of Remedesivir Directly Impacts Public Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Detention Under NSA

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the detention of a man, accused of black marketing of Remedesivir injections amid Covid-19 pandemic, under the National Security Act, 1980.A Division Bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and Anil Verma held that Blackmarketing of remedesivir injection has direct impact on "public order", and the Petitioner-accused if released, could indulge into same activity because the scarcity of remedesivir is still there.The High Court further elucidated on the principles of statutory interpretation and clarified that the explanation appended to Section 3(2) of NSA only takes out the aspect of blacklisting of certain commodities which are covered by the Prevention of Blackmarketing And Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. It does not however dilute or take away the right of detaining authority under the NSA Act regarding eventualities relating to maintenance of 'public order' or security of the State."Blackmarketing of a drug like remedesivir in days of extreme crisis is certainly such an ugly act and fact which can very well be a reason for invoking Section 3 of NSA Act against the petitioner by District Magistrate," the High Court thus ruled.In the present matter, the petitioner was detained by District Magistrate on allegations of black marketing of Remedesivir injections. The DM opined that when the highest numbers of Covid-19 patients were there at Indore, the petitioner's act has caused a serious threat to the public order.Section 3(2) of NSA deals with three contingencies when a citizen can be detained for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to (a) security of State; (b) maintenance of public order; and (c) maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The explanation appended thereto, Petitioner's counsel Mudit Maheshwari argued, makes it clear that if somebody acted in a manner which is prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community but such act falls within the ambit of the Blackmarketing Act, 1980, such person cannot be detained under the NSA.On the other hand, AAG Pushyamitra Bhargava for the State argued that explanation to Section 3(2) of the NSA Act deals with "maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community." Further, it is clear that under Section 3(1)(b) of the Black Marketing Act, to treat a commodity as an essential commodity, twin conditions are to be satisfied; (a) the commodity must be defined as an essential commodity under the Act of 1955; (b) a provision is present in any other law about the said commodity. In the instant case, in the absence of any such provision being made, Section 3(1)(b) ingredients are not satisfied.The Court held that the use of "explanation" in a statute is an internal aid to construction. It relied on the objects of an explanation as provided by the Apex Court in S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, i.e., it cannot. (a) interfere with or change the enactment; (b) take away a statutory right; (c) create hindrance in the working and interpretation of the Act. It was held that an explanation is meant to: (a) to explain the meaning and intention of the Act; (b) to clarify any obscurity or vagueness and make it consistent with the dominant object of Act (c) to provide any additional support to the dominant object of the Act; (d) suppress the mischief and advance the object of the Act. The Court further noted,"An explanation may be added to include something within or to exclude something from the ambit of the main enactment or the connotation of some word occurring in it. Similarly a negative explanation which excludes certain types of category from the ambit of enactment may have the effect of showing that the category leaving aside the excepted types is included within it. Thus, the explanation in the instant case, has a limited impact on main provision i.e. Section 3(2) of NSA Act. It does not dilute or take away the right of detaining authority under the NSA Act regarding eventualities relating to maintenance of 'public order' or security of the State."The Court rejected Maheshwari's argument that since Remedesivir is an essential drug/commodity, therefore, obstruction to its supply or black marketing can be a reason to invoke the Black marketing Act, but NSA Act cannot be invoked. In this regard, the Court held:"Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 is wide enough which contains and deals with three contingencies, whereas 'explanation' takes only one beyond the purview of the NSA Act if it is covered by Blackmarketing Act."The Court instead accepted the argument of the AAG that black marketing of Remedesivir creates a threat to "public order," and if public order is breached or threatened, NSA Act can very well be invoked as held in the Yatindra Verma case. Thus, the conclusion arrived at was that an explanation to Section 3(2) of the NSA Act would not exclude the operation of the NSA Act in a case of this nature where 'public...

Blackmarketing Of Remedesivir Directly Impacts Public Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Detention Under NSA

Shrutika Pandey

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Blackmarketing Of Remedesivir Directly Impacts Public Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Detention Under NSA

Shrutika Pandey

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers