'Govt Must Consider Detenu's Representation At Earliest Point Of Time' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Detention Under NSA

The Supreme Court recently set aside a preventive detention order passed under the National Security Act on the ground that the detenu's representation against the preventive detention was considered by the State government belatedly.A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh noted from the facts of the case that the appellant-detenu made 2 representations against the detention order passed against him - one, to the detaining authority, and another, to the State government. However, the State government considered his representation after it approved the detention order.As the State government considered the detenu's representation only after it approved the detention order, the court set aside the preventive detention order, noting that a detenu's representation must be considered at the earliest point in time."A duty is imposed on the concerned Government to consider the representation of the detenu at the earliest point of time. In the present case, the detaining authority did not forward the representation to the State Government immediately, though it had actually been sent to the detaining authority by the prison authority at the earliest point of time."The Court held that the belated consideration of the detenu's representation vitiated both the detention order and its approval. Accordingly, both the preventive detention order and its approval were quashed and the appellant directed to be released forthwith.Briefly put, as alleged in the grounds of detention, the detenu and his acquaintances carried out unauthorized digging and construction work adjacent to the Shree Krishna Janam Bhoomi and Dwarkadeesh temple in Mathura.Despite objections from local residents, the excavation continued and it resulted in the collapse of five houses, cracks in half a dozen others. Also, three persons died including children.The incident caused widespread panic, resulting in traffic congestion and the deployment of specialised forces, including the NDRF and SDRF. The detenu was arrested after being booked under Section 105 BNS. He moved a bail application on June 30, 2025, and two days later, the District Magistrate, Mathura, passed the impugned detention order (July 2).Before the High Court, the detenu argued that there was no occasion for the detaining authority to invoke the NSA since he was already behind bars. However, the bench rejected this contention by referring to Section 3 of the Act.The Court explicitly ruled that where the detaining authority is of the opinion that a person, who is in jail, is likely to be released and, upon being released, there is a reasonable apprehension of such person indulging in acts prejudicial to public order, then the detaining authority may pass a detention order under Section 3 of the Act.Case Title: SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA ALIAS SUNIL CHAIN v. UNION OF INDIA, Diary No. - 10476/2026Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 448Click here to read the order

'Govt Must Consider Detenu's Representation At Earliest Point Of Time' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Detention Under NSA

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

'Govt Must Consider Detenu's Representation At Earliest Point Of Time' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Detention Under NSA

Debby Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers