Case Summary: Prakash Chandra Yadav @ Mungeri Yadav v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., (2023)

The 'Case Analysis: Prakash Chandra Yadav @ Mungeri Yadav v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., (2023)' emphasises the decision of the apex court which firmly asserted an extension order for the detention was undoubtedly in violation, but it affirmed that the initial detention order itself cannot be challenged. Therefore, failure to duly consider the appellant's representation in a timely manner would amount to a breach of the constitutional imperative.

Case Title: Prakash Chandra Yadav @ Mungeri Yadav v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 4324 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5331/2023)

Judges: Hon'ble Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

Date: 10th July 2023

Facts

The appellant of this case had been served on 8 August 2022 a detention order’s copy while he was detained via judicial custody in Sahibganj District, Rajmahal Prison. The order had been passed by the District Magistrate of Sahebganj. The detention order elaborated about 18 cases that had been pending against the appellant and also the grounds on which he had to be detained. The same included varied types of cases such as simple hurt to extortion and murder.

A representation was filed by the appellant against this order and the same had been handed over to the jail authorities at Sahibganj district on 18.8.2022. The State however continues to deny this claim. As per the appellant, the representation had been sent via email as well as Indian Post Consignment on 19.08.2022. Jharkhand government received the same on 26.08.2022. While this was happening, his detention was approved on 12.08.2022, by the State government through the Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management under Section 12(3) of the Act.

Advisory Board was sent papers seeking advice on the continuation of detention on 2.09.2022. The advisory board also approved the detention by stating the presence of sufficient grounds in this favour. The State Government then passed an order on 16.09.2022 to confirm and extend the detention period. On 07.11.2022 another order was passed for extending the detention period for another 3 months till 07.02.2023. Another order was passed for extending the detention for another 6 months till 07.08.2023.

Issue

Whether the decision of the Appellate Board is in violation of Section 19 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, since the representation made by the appellant on 18.08.2022 was not placed before it?

Laws Applied

The case involves the application of the provisions of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 since the Act governs the said matter in issue. Reference has been made to provisions- S.2(d), S.19, S.12(3), S.21, S.18 and S.15.

Judgment

The court held that the extension orders passed for the detention are violative undoubtedly, yet the original order for detention cannot be questioned. Thus, if the representation of the appellant is not considered in due time, the same would lead to a violation of the constitutional imperative. The court held all detention orders for extension post initial 3 months to be illegal and hence void.

The orders dated 7th November 2022 and 7th February 2023 which extended the detention period were quashed by the court. Moreover, orders of the Jharkhand High Court’s Division Bench were also set aside which were dated 02.03.2023 in LPA No. 568 of 2022 and 02.11.2022 of learned Single Judge in W.P. (Crl) No. 405 of 2022. Thus the appeal was allowed and the appellant was ordered to be released.

Cases Referred

1. K.M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 476: Unexplained delay in considering the representation of the detenu leads to violation of his rights and thereby any such detention would be illegal.

2. The court in its judgement mentioned that the same as explained above, was followed in the following cases:

Meena Jayendra Thakur v. UOI: (1999) 8 SCC 177; Sayed Abul Ala v. UOI: (2007) 15 SCC 208 and Abdul Nasar Adam Ismail v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.: (2013) 4 SCC 435.

Important Links