Sonu Bairwa Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

WRIT PETITION, 9878 of 2021, Judgment Date: Jul 07, 2021

Law Point -

National Security Act, 1980 – Section 3(2) – It can be invoked in three contingencies and a citizen can be detained:

i) for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of State.

ii) for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

iii) for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

Interpretation of Statute – Use of “Explanation” – Explanation may be added to include something within or to exclude something from the ambit of the main enactment or the connotation of some word occurring in it.

“Explanation”- The object of an explanation to a statutory provision is ordinarily:

(a) to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act itself;

(b) where there is any obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment, to clarify the same so as to make it consistent with the dominant object which it seems to subserve,

(c) to provide an additional support to the dominant object of the Act in order to make it meaningful and purposeful;

(d) an Explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where gap is left which is relevant for the purpose of the Explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance the object of the Act it can help or assist the court in interpreting the true purport and intendment of the enactment; and 

(e) it cannot, however, take away a statutory right with which any person, under a statute has been clothed or set at naught the working of an Act by becoming an hindrance in the interpretation of the same.

Section 3(2) of NSA Act – 'Explanation' – The explanation does not eclipse the entire main provision namely Section 3(2) of NSA Act. Indeed, it only takes out the aspect of blacklisting of certain commodities which are covered by The Prevention of Blackmarketing And Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.

“Public Order” – Section 3 of NSA Act – It is very wide and during pandemic like situation, action of blacklisting of essential drug like remedisivir brings the action within the purview of “public order”.

Acting under dictate – The social media post of Chief Minister does not essentially shows that it was read out and acted upon by the District Magistrate. The contents of social media post cannot be equated with an administrative order unless a direct nexus between the post and detention order is established.

Precedential Value of a judgment - A judgment of a Court cannot be read as Euclid's Theorem. This is trite that a judgment of a Court cannot be read as Euclid’s theorem [See Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. N.R. Vairmani (2004) 8 SCC 579, C.Ronald Vs. UT Andaman & Nicobar Islands (2011) 12 SCC 428, Deepak Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 16 SCC 14]. This is equally settled that little difference in facts or an additional fact may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision.

NSA Act 1980 - A person already under arrest can still be detained under the NSA Act if three conditions are satisfied:- i) detaining authority had knowledge about detenu's custody, ii) there exists real possibility of detenu's release on bail and, iii) necessity of preventing him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of State or maintenance of public order upon his release on bail.

Sonu Bairwa Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.