SALIM versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

SALIM

STATE OF \VEST BENGAL

.fonuary 27, 1975

(M. H. BEG, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND A. C. GUPH, JJ.]

Maime11wu;;1' of lntunal Secul'ity Act. 1971-Words & phrases-Meaning of 'forthwith'-Ncm application of mind-·A. vaila.?ility of alternative remedy of prosecution whethu im·alidar~s detmtion.

The ord~r of d~tention was pas-1~cl against the petitioner on 13-6-1972. 011 15th June the Dimict Magistrate rtporkd the fact of ma\:ing the order to the Sta.le Government. Sta.le GavernmenL approvtd the order on 21st June.

It wa> contended by the appellant·.

(!) Th<'t the [Di~trict ]!\fagistrate did not report the maki'lg of the order "forthwith" a' r~quired by s~ction 30) and that the detention was, thcrdore. liable to be set aside.

(2) Since the State Government rejected the repres~ntation on the very next day, it nm'! he helJ that it did not apply its mind to 1he representation.

(3) The petitioner could have been pros·~cnted for the acts attribu!ed to him and therefore could not be detained.

Dismissing the petition,

HELD : I..aws o{ Preventive D~tention by which subjo~ts are deprived of their p~rsonal liberty without the safeguards available in judicial trial ought to be coll'Strued with the grea:cst strictness. The delay on the part of the Di:;trict Magistr.tte in reporting to the State Government the fact of making the detention order would inevitably curt:;,il the period available to th~ State Government for approving the detention ord•:r. Su~h delay may conceivably lead to hurried and Cllrsory consideration of the propriety or justification of the order and tkreby impair valuable safeguard available to the detenu. Therefore, ~he word 'forthwith' cannot he construed so as to permit indolence or laxi'.y on the part of the oflkcr charged with the duty of reporting the detention. However. reason-able allowance has to be made for unavoidable delays, always remembering that the detaining authority must· explain any long delay by pointing out circum-stances due to which the report 10 the State Government could not be made with the greatest promptitude. The report was made to the State Government on 15th June which still left to it margin of 10 days to consider the merits of the order. It cannot be said that the delay in making the report left to the State Government insufficient time to consider whether the order of detention should be approved. The ord~r was, in fact, approved on 21st June much before the expiry of the statutory period. The order is dated 13th. The explan3tion of the Department that report could noc he m~de on 14th due to ndminist•·:1tive difficulties is acceptable. f'·95 G: 396 F-G; 397 B-q

The cont,ention of the p.;:1ition~r that since the Stat~ Government r~jccted th~ representation the yery next day. it must be held that it did not <ipply its mmd to the representa!lon wrN negauved. The length of time which dcci sion takes <loes not necessari1y reffec1s 1~Jt: ~:t-i'e of [1]Jp-~n!"Jr~;·..; hrouo:ht to bear nix~n it. [399 Al · •

The cm1ltntion of t11c petiiianer tl1at he could have been prosernted for the ai:ts attributed to him wa5 negatived on the ground that availability of an alternate remedy is not by itself an effective answer to the validity of the detention. [400 A-BJ

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.: Writ Petition No. 506 of 1974 Petition U,1der Article 32 of the Constitution. ·

D. N. Mukherjee and Gobind Mukhoty A.C., for the ~etitioner

G. S. C. Chatterjee of Sukumar Basu & Co., for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Comt was delivered by

CHANDRACHUD, J.The petitioner, Skq. Salim, challenges by this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution an order of deten-tion passed by the District M:igistrate, 24-Parganas, under the Main-tenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order was vassed on June 13, 1972 avowedly with view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies a•.1d services essential to the community. The particulars furnished to the petitioner refer to two incidents of theft dated January 31 and Feb-nrary 23, 1972. The former relates to theft of underground copper cables and the latter to theft of A.C.S.R. Coaductors. The parti-culars further mention that on February 24, 1972 the petitioner and two of his named associates were found in possession of 30 K. Gs of stolen A.C.S.R. Conductors.

Section 3 (1) of the Act empowers the Centml Government and the State Governments to pass orders of dete<ation for the reason;: therein mentioned. Secti.on 3 (2) confers power on District Magis- , trates, speci'ally empowered Additional District Magistrates and Commi-sstoners of Police to pass orders of detention for reasons specified there-in. If an order of detention is passed by any of these officers.

Secti.on 3 (2) confers power on District Magis- ,

If an order of detention is passed by any of these officers.

"hr. shall forthwith report the fact to the State Gover,1-ment to which he is subordinate together with the grounds on which the order has been made, and such other particu-lars as in his opinion have bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof unless in the mea·.1time it has been . approved by the State Government : " '

ffhat is the clear mandate of section 3 (3).

The District Magistrate, in the instant case, made the detention · order on June 13, 1972 and on me 15th he reported the fact of mak-ing the order to the State Government. The question for consitlera-tion, which has been argued with some fervour by the learned counsel appearing amicus curiae for the petitioner, is whether the District Magistrate can be said to have repbrtcd the making of the order "forth-with" as required by section 3 (3).

Laws of preventive detention by which subjects are deprived of their personal liberty without .the safeguards available in judicial trial ought to be comtrued with the greatest strictness. Courts must therefore be vigilant to ensure that the detenu is not deprl;ed of the modicum of rights a<ad safeguards which the preventive law itself affords to him. The Maintenance of Internal Security Act contains what is evidently thought to be scheme of checks and counter-checks by which the propriety or necessity of detention order may at variousstages be exami'.ted by various authorities. . If an order of deten~i?n is made by ~. District Magistrate .or. spec1alry. empow~red _,A~d1t1onal Dis.trict Magistrate or Comm1ss1oner of Police, he is required by section 3(3) to report "forthwith" to the State Government about ~he making of the order. The order c;lnnot remain in force for more tlrnn : 12 days or in the circumstances mentioned in the Proviso to section 3(3), for more than 22 days unless in the meantime it has been ap-proved by the State Government. If the ordet is made o~ approved by the St•ate Government it must under section 3 ( 4) report the fact to the Central Government within 7 days. By sectio.u 10, save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, the appropriate Government sh~U witpin 30 days from the date of detention under the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted under section 9 the grounds on which the order has b(:en made, the representation if a,1y m'ade by the detenu and in case where the order has been made by any of the officers specified \111dcr section 3 (2), the report made by the officc~r under section 3 (3). Section J 1 (1) requires the Advisory Board to submit its report. to the appropriate Government within 10 weeks from the date of detention. This time-schedule, evolved r11 order obviously to provide an expeditious opportunity at different levels for testing the justification of the detention order has to be observed scrupulously and its rigour cannot be relaxed on any facile assumption that what is good if done within 7, 12 or 30 days could as well be good if done, say. withi'.1 JO, 15 or 35 days.

The requirement that the District Magistrate or the other officers malking the order of detention shall forthwith report the fact of mak-ing the order to the State Government can therefore admit of no relaxa, .. tion, especially because it has distinct and important purpose to serv(:. The 12 days' period which the Act in normal circumstances allows to the State Government for approving the detentio'.1 order is evidently thought to be reasonably' necessary for enabling the Government to consider the pros and cons of the order. Delay on the part of the District Magistrate or the other officers in reporting to the State Gov.::tll:· ment the fact of maki'.1g the detention order would inevitably aurtail the period available to the State Government for approving the deten-tion order. The period of 12 or 22 days. as the case may be, whic:~ is referred to in section 3 ( 3) runs from the date on which the order of detention is made and not from the date on which the fact of mak-inii the order is reported to the State Government. Such delay may conceivably lead to hunied and cursory consideration of the pro·-priety or justification of the order and thereby impair valuable safe-guard available to the detenu. liberal construction of the require-ment that the officer makin~ the order of detention shall forthwith report the fact to the Sta:~ Government is therefore out of place.

' Contending for the acceptance of the literal meaning of the word 'forthwith', counsel for the petitiO'.ler argues that administrative cxigen-.cies cannot ever be 'allowed to explain away the delav between the ~a~:ing of .the detenti~n order and the report of it to the State Govem---meiltt. . It is an esilabl!shed rule of construction that unless the langu·-age of the statute i.~ ambiguoo~, the words used by the Jegi~lature ought

to be given their plain, literal meao.1ing. But it is ei;iually important tilat by ·nq rule of construction ffi'ay the words of statute be so inter-pretcd~.as to bring about absurd situations in practice. Ihe strangle-. hold of stark literalness has therefore to be avoided in order to give rational meaning and content to the la'aguage used in the st11tute. Thus, though the word 'forthwith' cannot be construed so as to ptJrmit indolence or laxity on the part of the officer charged with the duty of reporting the detention to the State Government, reasonable allowa.1ce has to be m-ade for unavoidable delays, always remembering that the detaining authority must explain any long delay by pointing out circum-stances due to which the report to the State G•wernment could not be ma'1e with the greatest promptitude.

The dictionary meaning of 'forthwith; is : "lm!llediately, at once, without delay or interval". typical instance of the use of the word cited in the dictionary is : "When defendant is ordered to plead forth· with, he must plead within twenty-four hours" (See Shorter Oxford English Dictio'.iary, Third Edition, Vol. I, p.740). This shows that the mandate that the report shonld be made forthwith does not require for its compliance foYow-up action at the split-second when the order of detention is made. There ought to be no laxity and laxity cannot be condoned in face of the command that the report shall be made forthwith. The legislative mandate, however, Ca'anot be measur-ed mathematically in terms of seconds, minutes and hours in order to find whether the report was mal:Ie forthwith. Administrative exi-gencies may on occasions render post-haste compliance impossible and therefore reasonable allowance has to be made for tmavoidable delays. This approach does not offend against the rule formulated in Ki.shori Mohan Bera v. State of West Bengal (1), and followed in Blutt Nath Mete v. The State of West Ben;:ai([2]). that law depriv-ing 3ubject of personal liberty must be construed strictly. The rule of strict constructi0',1 is no justification for holding that the act to be performed 'forthwith' must be perf.ormed the very instant afterwards without any intervening intem1! of time or that it sh::iuld be performed simultaneously with the other act. Citing Sameen v. Abeyewick-remae)' tviaxwell says that where something is to be dose forthwi•h, Court will not require instantaneous comtlliance with the ~1atulory requirements ("The Interpretation' of Statut.es" 12'h Ed., pp. 101-102).

In Keshav Nilkanth /o~kkpr v. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay(4), •a Constitution Bench of this Court had to deal with· similar contention foundt:d on section 3 ( 3) of the Preventive · Detention Act IV of 1950, which,was in terms identical with section__ 3(3) of the Act under consideration. The order of detention was passed in that case on January 13, 1956 but the report to the State Government was made on January 21. Accepting the explanafrori offered by the detaining authority in his affidavit as to why he c1'.iulct not make the reoort earlier. the Court held that the question to comi<fer under section 3 ( 3) was whether the report was sent at the earliest ~~~~~~~~~~ble and when there is an interval of time between

(n [t972J 3 sec 845. . · (3) flQl\.1] A.C. 597. I 1-423SCil1S

(2l [19741 m sec 645 . (4) fl956] S.C.R. 653.

the date of the order and the date of the report, whether the delay could have been avoided. The test which the Court applied for deter-mining whether the report was made forthwith was whether the act was done "with aH reasonable despatch •.ind without <l\'<.'idabk cklay." In Bidya Deb Banna Etc. v. Diwi,:1 ,iJaf;istra:e. Tripura, Agar/a/a, ( [1]) the same problem arose for consideration. The District Magistrate had passed the order of dctl'ntion under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 on February 9, 1968 but made his report to the State Govcrnme'.lt on February 13. While cxpluining the delay, the District Magistrate stated in his affidavit that 10th and 11th Fdiruary were closed days and he was during the particular period "extremely busy" due to "heavy rush of work." This explanation was accept-ed by the Court as satisfactory. In coming to the conclusion that there was no violation of the requirement that the report should be made 'forthwith', the Constitution Bench relied on Joglekar's case a,1d on the following passage which occurred in Maxwell's 1 lth edition at page 341 :

''When statute requires that something shall be done "forthwith", or "immediately" or even "instantly'', it should probably be understoo\:! as allowing reasonable time for doing it."

Thus, 'forthWith' does not conaote precise time and even if the statute under consideration requires that the report shaU be made forth-with, its terms shall have been complied with if the report is made without avoidable or unreasonable delay.

In Hillingdon London Borough Council v. Cutler([2]), Harman L.J. while holding that the concept of 'forthwith' does not exclude the allowance of reasonable time for dorag the act, qualified his for-mulation by adding the rider "provided that no harm is done." Apply-ing that test, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the late making of the report. The Srate Government could ap-prove the d1!tention any time before June 25, the order havin!; b~en passed on June 13. The report was made to the State Government cm .Tune 15 which still left to it margin of about 10 days to consider the merits of the order. It. cannot be said that the delay in making the report left to the State Government insufficient time to consider whether the order of detention should be approved. The order was in fact approved on June 21, much before the expiry of the statutory period of 12 days.

The District Magistrate, it must be stated, has not explained in his affidavit why he did not report the fact of detention to the State Gov-ernment promptly. The order js dated June 13 and if not on the 13th itself, he should have in normal circumstances made his report on the 14th. Such remisness on the part of detaining authorities is not to be encouraged but it ought to be stated that counsel for the State Government ha\i asked for an adjournment to enable the District Maf!-istrate to file supplementary affidavit for explaining the delay. We

(2) [1968] I Q.B. 124. at p. 135.

{I) [1969] 1 S.C.R. 562.

did not grant. the adjournment as we were inclined to the view that the interval between the date of the order and the date of the report is not s•o long as to require an explanation on oath. The date on which the order was passe~:I. may, even according to the petitioner's counsel be left out of the reckoning. That accounts for the 13th. The report was made on the 15th and there' is some authority for the proposition .B that an act may be taken as done "at the first moment of the day on which it was performed" (See Maxwell, 12th Ed. pp. 311-312). That takes. care of the 15th. All that can therefore be said is that there was one day's delay in making the report. We arc not inclined to dismiss as untrue the oral explanation offered on behalf of the District Magis-trate that he could not make the report on the 14th due to administra-tive difficulties. As it cannot be said that the District Magistra[1]:e had. slept over the order or was "lounging supinely" over it and since the explanation of one day's delay ml!)' be accepted as reasonable, there is no violation of the requirement that the report to the State Government shall be made forthwith.

few other contentions were raised on behalf of the petiti'oner but. we se,e no substance in any one of them. It is contended that section 3(4) has been violated because the State Government did not make report to the Central Government within 7 days of the date of the order of detention. The short answer to this contention is that the period of 7 days has to be reckoned from the date on which the State Government approved the order and not from the date on which the District Magistrate passed the order. If the order were made by the State Government, the report would have been required to be made to the Central Government within 7 days of the date of the oltler; but the order in the instant case was approved and not made by the State Government. It was then said that there was no proximity between the iqcidents leading to the detention and the order of detention as. there was gap of about 4 months in between. The explanation of the interval is that the petitioner was being prosecute(! and an order of discharge had t'O be obtained on June 17, 1972. The order of deten-tion was passed 4 days betbre the order of discharge was passed. ·It is next contended that the State Govemment having rejected the peti· tioner's representation the very next day that it was received, it' must be held that it did not apply its riiind to the representation. We do not suppose that the length of time which decision takes necessarily reflects the care or openness brought to bear upon it. The answer to yet another contention that the entire material which influenced the sub-H jective satisfaction of the Magistrate in passing the order of detention was not supplied to the petitioner is that according to the countered affidavit of the District Magistrate, nothing apart from what is stated

in the grounds and the particulars was taken into account while pass· ing the order of detention. The last submission that the petitioner could have bee11 prosecuted for the .acts attributed t-o him has b<~en answered by this Court in numerous cases by saying that the availabi-lity of an alternate reme:dy is not by itself an effective answer to the validity of the detention.

In the result we dismiss the petition and discharge the rule.

Petition dismissed.