Case: Sat Pal Vs. State of Punjab &amp; Others

2. It appears that the detenu was apprehended on June 28, 1981, and served with the order of detention together with the grounds of detention as well as with copies of documents and statements relied upon in the grounds of detention. On July 4, 1981, while the detenu was under detention his counsel Shri Herjinder Singh addressed a registered letter to the Superintendent of Jail. Central Jail, Amritsar enclosing therewith two representations drafted on behalf of the detenu, one of which was addressed to the Joint Secretary, State Government of Punjab, Department of Home, Chandigarh, and the other endorsed to the Central Government through the Secretary. Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, for revocation of the order of detention under Section 11 of the Act. The Superintendent was requested by the said letter that the representations be forwarded to the State Government and the Central Government, after obtaining the signatures of the detenu thereon. On July 6, 1981, the two representations were received by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar, and on the 7th he forwarded the same to the Joint Secretary, State Government of Punjab, Home Department, Chandigarh, with an endorsement that one of them be forwarded to the Central Government through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. On the next day, i.e. July 8, 1981, the two representations, one addressed to the State Government and the other endorsed to the Central Government were received in the Home Department. On July 24, 1981, the State Government rejected the representation made by the detenu and thereafter forwarded it to the Advisory Board, which by its report dated July 31, 1981, considered the representation and rejected it. On receipt of the report of the Advisory Board, the State Government confirmed the order of detention on August 6, 1981. It, however, appears that the representation made by the petitioner to the Central Government for revocation of his order of detention under Section 11 of the Act, was not forwarded by the State Government to the Central Government till September 23, 19813. In hisdated Septmber 8, 1981, Shri N. I. Ramanathan. Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. COFEPOSA Unit, stated that no representation from the detenu relating to his detention had been received by the Central Government and, as such, the question of any delay in its disposal did not arise. It, therefore, appears that till Sep. 8, 1981, the representation endorsed to the Central Government remained unattended to in the Punjab Secretariat. This was indeed a serious lapse on the part of the State Government and it is quite evident that it has no explanation to offer. In hisShri Kuldip Singh Janjua, IAS, Joint Secretary to the State Government of Punjab, Home Department has not controverted the allegation made by the detenu that his counsel had forwarded two copies of the representation, one addressed to the State Government and the other to the Central Government, with request for the onward transmission of the other representation to the Central Government. He merely adverts to the fact that the State Government had taken all the necessary steps to deal with the representation made by the detenu to it. There is no explanation given for not forwarding the other representation to the Central Government4. In hiser 6, 1981, Shri N. I. Ramanathan. Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, COFEPOSA Unit, has disclosed that the State Government of Punjab, by its letter No.dated September 23, 1981, forwarded the copy of the representation endorsed to the Central Government and that it was received in the Ministry of Finance on September 24, 1981. The said representation was considered by the Central Government and rejected on September 28, 1981. It is, therefore, quite clear that there was no delay on the part of the Central Government in dealing with the representation. The question is whether the unexplained delay on the part of the State Government in not forwarding the representation till September 23, 1981, i.e. for a period of 2 months and 15 days, renders the continued detention invalid

Reasoning: 12. In the present case, there was, therefore, no denial of the right of making a representation to the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention under Section 11 of the Act, unlike in Rattan Singhs case (supra). There is nothing but the unexplained delay on the part of the State Government and that by itself is not sufficient to invalidate the order of detention. The detenu was not deprived of the right of making a representation to the State Government, i.e., the detaining authority, as well as of the right of making a representation to the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention under Section 11 of the Act. The representations that he made were duly considered by the State Government and the Central Government. The contention that the unexplained delay on the part of the State Government is sufficient to invalidate the order of detention can hardly be accepted. The Court must look at the substance of the matter and not act on mere technically13. We have no hesitation in repelling the contention that the power of revocation conferred on the Central Government under Section 11 is not attracted until the State Government has considered the representation made by the detenu and rejected it and until the Advisory Board has submitted its report to the State Government. Under the Act, a detenu has the right to simultaneously make a representation to the detaining authority which has to be considered by the Advisory Board, as also the right to apply to the Central Government for revocation of the detention order under Section 11. It is implicit in the decision in Rattan Singhs case (supra), that there was a duty cast on the State Government to forward the representation to the Central Government forthwith and failure to do so may render the continued detention illegal. Failure to comply with the second condition does not make the order of detention valid, merely because there is compliance with the first. There consideration, however, do not arise in the present case14. We are also constrained to record our disapproval of the disdainful attitude displayed by Shri Kuldip Singh Janjua, IAS, Joint Secretary to the Government of Punjab. Home Department. In histhere is no denial of the allegation made by the detenu and indeed, there is no explanation for not forwarding the representation to the Central Government till September 23, 1981. There is instead a statement to the effect"..... the time imperative can never be absolute or obsessive. The occasional observations that each days delay in dealing with the representation must be adequately explained are meant to emphasise the expedition with which the representation must be considered and not that it is a magical formula." We are at a loss to appreciate the propriety of this observation. It betrays complete lack of awareness of the constitutional obligations imposed under Art. 22(5) and shows disrespect to the several decisions of this Court laying down that matters where the liberty of the subject is involved, should not be treated in a cavalierThe whole purpose of a representation that a detenu makes under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution read with Section 8 of the Act, is to secure revocation of the order of detention. It is evident from the scheme of the Act that the power of revocation is exercisable at two stages. In the first place, there is a duty cast on the appropriate Government, i.e. the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, to revoke the detention order under Section 8(f) of the Act and cause the person to be released forthwith, where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion no sufficient cause for the detention. Secondly, the Central Government, may, at any time under clause (b) of(1) of Section 11 of the Act, revoke an order of detention that has been made by an officer of the Central Government or by a State Government. Under Clause (a) thereof, the State Government may likewise exercise such power in relation to an order made by an officer of the State Government. Under Section 11(1)(b) of the Act, the Central Government, therefore, has the overriding power to revoke a detention order, at any time, made by the State Government, or an officer of the State Government, under(1) of Section 3 of the Act. That is as it should be, as under our federal structure the Central must always keep a vigilant eye in the matter of life and liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Art. 21