J. Sofia Lamkang v. The State of Manipur

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN BEFORE Respondents For the Petitioner : Ms. Rinika Maibam, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 : Mr. Th. Vashum, Government Advocate For Respondent Nos. 3 : Mr. S. Samarjeet, Sr. PCCG Date of Order : 21.12.2022 ORDER (ORAL) Sanjay Kumar (C.J.): [1] Challenge in this writ petition is to the order of detention dated

04.10.2022 of the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, whereby the petitioner was subjected to preventive detention in exercise of power under Section W.P. (Crl.) No. 30 of 2022 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. [2] Heard Ms. Rinika Maibam, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1, 2 & 4; and Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned Sr. PCCG, appearing for respondent No. 3. [3] The main ground pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the delay in the disposal of the petitioner’s representation dated

11.11.2022. As per the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, the said representation was rejected on

07.12.2022 after calling for the views of the police department, which were received on 06.12.2022. However, no explanations were offered as to the time frames in the context of such disposal. [4] Mr. Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate, produced the file of the detaining authority before the Court. Perusal thereof reflects that the detenu’s representation dated 11.11.2022 was received by the Home Department from the Inspector General of Prisons, Manipur, under letter dated 14.11.2022. The Note-file reflects that para-wise comments on the said representation were received from the police department under letter dated 06.12.2022. These para- wise comments seem to have been furnished in response to letter dated 18.11.2022 of the Home Department. The documents in the detaining authority’s file reflect that the Inspector General of Prisons, Manipur, forwarded the detenu’s representation dated 11.11.2022, addressed to several authorities, to the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, under letter dated 14.11.2022 and the same was received by the Home Department on 15.11.2022. The delay on the part of the Inspector General of Prisons in forwarding the representation, received by him from the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Imphal, on 11.11.2022 itself, is not explained. Further, having received the representation on 15.11.2022, the W.P. (Crl.) No. 30 of 2022 Home Department did not call for para-wise comments from the police authorities till 18.11.2022. Again, no explanation is forthcoming from the record as to why three days’ time was taken to just address a letter to the Director General of Police, Manipur. The para-wise comments which were received from the police authorities do not find place in the file, though a reference was made in the Note-file to the receipt of such para-wise comments on 06.12.2022. Basing thereon, the representation was rejected on 07.12.2022. The unexplained delays on the part of the authorities from stage to stage are fatal to continuance of the detention order. [5] Though it is laudable that the Government of Manipur is waging a ‘war on drugs’ and initiating stringent measures to arrest the menace of illicit drug trafficking and marketing in and through the State of Manipur, it is equally its responsibility to ensure that the procedural safeguards provided in preventive detention laws are scrupulously adhered to so as to protect the Constitutional and statutory rights of persons detained thereunder. Despite this Court stating to this effect time and again, scant regard is shown by the authorities concerned to compliance with the prescribed norms. [6] In Rajammal vs. State of T.N. and another [(1999) 1 SCC 417], the Supreme Court observed that if delay is caused in consideration of the detenu’s representation owing to indifference or any other lapse, such delay would adversely affect further detention of the prisoner. According to the Supreme Court, it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposing of the representation and it is not enough to say that the delay is very short, as even longer delay can as well be explained and so, the test is not the duration or range of delay, but how it is explained by the authority concerned. Be it noted that the unexplained delay in that case was a mere 5 days. [7] Earlier, in Professor Khaidem Ibocha Singh vs. The State of Manipur [AIR 1972 Supreme Court 438], the Supreme Court set aside an W.P. (Crl.) No. 30 of 2022 order of detention on the ground that there was unexplained delay of 17 days in the passing of an order on the representation made by the detenu. [8] More recently, in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. The District Magistrate, Jabalpur, and others [(Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2021, decided on 29.10.2021 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1019], the Supreme Court held that by delaying a decision on such representation, the State Government denied the detenu a valuable statutory right. The Supreme Court observed that the delay by the State Government in disposing of such representation strikes at the heart of the procedural rights and guarantees granted to a detenu. [9] The order of detention dated 04.10.2022 passed by the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, is accordingly set aside. All consequential proceedings based thereon shall also stand set aside. The petitioner, Mrs. Jangvei Sofia Lamkang, presently incarcerated in Manipur Central Jail, Imphal, shall be set at liberty forthwith unless her continued incarceration is validly required in connection with any other case. WP (Cril.) No. 30 of 2022 is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, for information and necessary further action in the context of educating the detaining authorities in the State of Manipur as to what are the procedural norms that they need to adhere to while exercising power under preventive detention laws. Sandeep JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE W.P. (Crl.) No. 30 of 2022