V.A. Mohta, J.
1 This is a Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the detenu Anil Paserkar challenging the order of his detention under section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (the N.S. Act), dated 30th May, 1989.
2. According to Shri Jaiswal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order and the continued detention is vitiated because of:
(1) Non-explaining the grounds of detention in Marathi.
(2) Non-submission of the report of the State Government to the Central Government within 7 days as required under section 3(5) of the N.S. Act.
(3) Non-mentioning of the period of detention in the original order.
(4) Non-consideration of the representation alleged to have been made by one Jiwan Baghele.
3. Basic facts first. The detenu was externed from Nagpur District for a period of two years vide order dated 1st March, 1983 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, since he was found to engage himself in the commission of violent and desperate acts, armed with deadly weapons since 1980. He violated the externment order, entered the city of Nagpur and committed grave offences and created terror in the minds of the general public. He was detained under the N.S. Act vide order dated 19th December, 1983 on the ground that he had disturbed even tempo of public which was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On completion of period of one year of detention, he was released. He repeated his activities and was, therefore, detained second time on 11th April, 1987, from which detention he was released on 10th April, 1988. The detenu even thereafter did not give up his activities and indulged in fresh incidents of disturbing the even tempo of public. Provisions of ordinary criminal laws were falling short to curb his activities and hence, the impugned order of detention dated 30th May, 1989 was passed third time. Those prejudicial activities relate to the period between 5th July, 1988 and 2nd April, 1989 due to which as many as seven criminal cases were filed on several Courts from different police stations. The charges pertain to the commission of violent and desperate acts, such as rioting, abusing people in filthy language, threatening to kill them, carrying deadly weapons in contravention of the prohibitory orders in force and creating terror in the minds of the general public.
4. The order of detention initially passed by the Commissioner of Police was approved by the State Government on 7th June, 1989 and was confirmed by the Advisory board on 13th July, 1989 for a period of one year from the date of detention. The State Government sent the report to the Central Government on 7th June, 1989, which reached the Ministry of Home Affairs on 12th June, 1989. The examination of the report by the Central Government was completed on 16th June, 1989 and no reason for revocation of the order was found.
5. On 22nd September, 1989, the State Government received one representation. It was addressed to nobody. It did not bear either any date or any signature/thumb mark. The photostat copy of the said representation is placed on record as Annexure 2. Against the column applicant is written only the name ‘Jiwan Baghele’. It does not disclose the address of the applicant or his relationship with the detenu. It does not even state that it was sent under instructions and authority from the detenu.
6. The first three grievances appear to be ex-facie altruistic and hollow. There is an endorsement by the Jailor that the grounds of detention were explained to the detenue in Hindi. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of that endorsement. It is not the case of the detenue that he does not follow Hindi language. The State Government as well as the Central Government have filed affidavits to the effect that the report was despatched on 7th June, 1989 by the State Government and received on 12th June, 1989 by the Central Government. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of these statements either. There is thus no violation of section 3(5) of the N.S. Act. It is not mandatory to mention the period of detention in the original order passed by the Commissioner of Police. In the order, passed by the State Government period of one year of detention is mentioned.
7. This takes us to the last grievance which is of some importance. Now, the representation made by Jiwan Baghele does not specify his relationship with the detenu. It does not even mentioned in the representation that it was being made under instructions and authority of the detenu. It is addressed to nobody. It does not bear any date, signature/thumb mark or the address of “Jiwan Baghele”. Does non-consideration of such a representation ipso facto vitiate the continued detention. Is the real question ? Our answer is in the negative for the reasons that follow.
8. There can be no manner of doubt that right of prompt and proper consideration or a representation by a detenu against an order of his preventive detention is a very valuable and cherished right recognised not only by N.S. Act but also guaranteed by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Judicial pronouncements made from time to time have well crystalised the legel position that such a representation need not be made personally by the detenu but can be made under his instructions and authority by his lawyer, agent, well wisher or a relative and that representation has to be considered liberally and not technically. See : Balchand Chourasia v. Union of India, , Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India, 1980 Cri.L.J. 1487.
9. Serious consequences follow on account of non-consideration or unduly delayed consideration of a representation of a detenu. That factor by itself vitiates the continued detention. The representation contemplated under the N.S. Act or the Constitution thus has a high status in the Scheme of the law relating to preventive detentions. But that does not mean every representation irrespective of its source, sequence and contents-has to be treated by the authorities as a representation under the N.S. Act and/or the Constitution. In this connection useful reference may be made to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Phillippa Anne Duke v. State of Tamil Nadu, , though they are made in somewhat different context :
“Representations from whatever source addressed to whomsoever officer of one or other department of the Government cannot be treated as a representation to the Government under selection 11 (1) (b) of the COFEPOSA Act.”
The nature of the representation in question in already noticed. It does not disclose either the identity of the applicant or that he was duly instructed and authorised by the detenu to make it. It is undated and unsigned. To compel the authorities to treat such representation as a representation contemplated under the N.S. Act and/or Article 22(5) of the Constitution and to quash the order of detention for its non-consideration in time is to take an impracticable view of the realities of life and to cast an unbearable burden on the authorities in charge. Several unconnected persons may make representations some time taking even contradictory stands, the responsibility of which the detenu may not take. It would be so easy to get undue advantage due to mere non-consideration or delayed consideration of such a representation even though it does not warrant that promptness and/or despatch by the authorities.
10. Procedural safeguards in favour of citizens are absolutely essential in cases of detentions without trial. Law on the point is undoubtedly technical. But public interest demands that it is not allowed to be hyper-technical. Liberty of an individual is certainly sacrosanct but is no less measure in sacrosanct the welfare of society.
11. In this connection, useful reference may be made up to the case of Awadh Kumar Shuha v. Adhiksklk Kendriya Karagar, Naini, 1983 All.L.J. 545, wherein Allahabad High Court did not hold the non-consideration of the representations made by the detenue’s close relations fatal to the order of detention on the ground that there was nothing to indicate that they had made the representation under his instructions. The relevant observations in that decision-with which we concure are:
“The section, in our opinion, does not carry any such implication that the Central or the State Government as the case may be bound to take into consideration the representation made by any person other than the detenu and to dispose of the same expeditiously. Reading of any such implication in the section is likely to make the task of the government difficult and it many unconnected persons and the detenu would get an advantage even if there is some delay on the part of the Government in considering any of such representations. While making the aforesaid observations we do not mean to say that representations under section 14 of the National Security Act must invariably be made by the detenu personally. For purposes of the Act, a representation can be said to have been made by a detenu not only when he makes the same personally but also when somebody makes it under his instructions and on his behalf.”
It appears, that similar approach was adopted by the same High Court even in the case of Asfaq v. State of U.P., 1984 Cri.L.J. 999.
12. To conclude, the petition is dismissed and Rule discharged.