What the Supreme Court ruled on detention under National Security Act [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court has held that in case of detention under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA), the detaining authority shall submit the detention report to the State government as early as possible and without any undue delay..The Bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud, in its judgement in the case of Hetchin Haokip vs the State of Manipur, interpreted the provisions of the NSA pertaining to the duty of the detaining authority to report a case of detention..In the present case, the appellant’s husband was arrested by the Manipur Police in May 2017 and was slapped with charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act. Subsequently, the District Magistrate of Bishnupur passed a detention order against the appellant’s husband on July 12 apprehending that he might be released on bail..On July 17, five days after the detention order was passed the detenu was informed about the grounds for his detention and the State government eventually approved this detention on July 20..The order of detention was challenged before the Manipur High Court on the grounds that the District Magistrate did not report the detention to the State government “forthwith” as is required under Section 3(4) of the NSA and the five-day delay in reporting the detention was in violation of this provision..The High Court dismissed this petition and the interpretation of this Section became the main issue in the appeal before the Supreme Court..The Section in question provides that when a detention order is passed, the detaining authority which is the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, must report the detention along with the grounds thereof, to the State government forthwith and that a detention order will not remain in force for more than twelve days..While ascertaining the correct interpretation of the word “forthwith” in this case, the Court laid down,.“…the position that emerges is that “forthwith,” under Section 3(4), does not mean instantaneous, but without undue delay and within reasonable time. Whether the authority passing the detention order reported the detention to the State Government within reasonable time and without undue delay, is to be ascertained from the facts of the case.”.The Manipur High Court, while dismissing this writ petition, had reasoned that as long as the report was submitted within twelve days, it was not prejudicial to the detenu considering that the detention order lapses only after twelve days. Taking a contrary view, the Supreme Court held.“It is settled law that a statute providing for preventive detention has to be construed strictly. While “forthwith” may be interpreted to mean within reasonable time and without undue delay, it certainly should not be laid down as a principle of law that as long as the report to the State Government is furnished within 12 days of detention, it will not prejudice the detenu.”.Interpreting “forthwith” to mean “at the earliest possible”, the judgement made it clear that even though the Section says that the detention order shall lapse after twelve days, the report, however, must be furnished as soon as possible and without any undue delay, adding that if there is any delay caused, it should be due to unavoidable circumstances only..In the present case, the Court observed that the District Magistrate submitted the report after a delay of five days without mentioning the reason for the delay and therefore the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition..“[T]here should be no laxity in reporting the detention to the government. Whether there were administrative exigencies which justify the delay in sending the reports must be explained by the detaining authority”, reads the judgement..The Court, therefore, set aside the High Court judgement and the detention order passed by the District Magistrate and allowed the appeal..Read Judgement: