Doctor's detention under National Security Act revoked: MP Govt tells SC

Bhopal: The Madhya Pradesh government Friday informed the Supreme Court that it has revoked the detention of a doctor, accused of black marketing anti-COVID Remdesivir injections at Indore, under the National Security Act.

The state government said that following its decision, the district magistrate wrote to the Jail Superintendent of Central Jail at Indore and the doctor was subsequently released.

A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli, after recording the submission of additional advocate general Saurabh Mishra, disposed of the plea filed by Aasefa Khan challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's July 16 order dismissing her habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of her husband under NSA.

Also Read: How can AYUSH doctors do dental procedure? Dentist takes CCIMR to court

During the brief hearing, Mishra said that on July16, the state government has decided to revoke the detention under NSA of the doctor and on August 2, district magistrate had written to Jail Superintendent of Central Jail, Indore to release him.

The bench said that nothing survives in the petition as the accused has been released and disposed of the plea filed by his wife.

Advocate R S Chhabra, appearing for Aasefa, said that they have also filed an appeal against rejection of bail by the high court, which in a way is also a stigma. Chhabra said that the appeal also needs to be heard at the earliest.

The bench said it will take up the appeal against rejection of bail in the due course of time.

On August 19, while issuing notice the top court had asked the Madhya Pradesh government, "Can an incident affect public order enough to invoke NSA".

The plea has recorded various grounds, mostly procedural, on which the detention is being challenged by the petitioner like the detenu was declared as "absconding" in the detention order dated May19, whereas he was in jail since May 13. The detention was also challenged on the grounds that the documents referred by the Superintendent of Police for recommending the doctor's detention under NSA, 1980 were not forwarded to the detaining authority.

Aasefa had stated that the memorandum relied upon by the detaining authority was not supplied to the detenu and the valuable right of representation to the detaining authority was defeated due to delay in execution of detention order, and by the time it was served, it had been approved by the state government.

The high court erred in not appreciating the consequence of wrongful declaration of the detenu as absconding as due to this the statutory authorities formed an impression that detenu is liable to be punished under provision of NSA, she said.

The plea filed through advocate P S Sudheer said, "The high court further erred in not appreciating the fact that memorandum of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, was referred to in the grounds of detention but was never served upon the detenu and thereby violating Article 22 (5) of the Constitution".

It said the high court erred in not appreciating the fact that there was delay in execution of detention order and no explanation was offered in the reply as to why there was delay in execution of the order when the detenu was already in custody.

"No explanation is tendered as to why it took 6 days after passing of the detention order to seek approval of the competent court to "formally arrest" the detenu. Delay in execution of detention order vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority," the plea said.

It said that the high court erred in not appreciating that Article 22(5) of the constitution mandates that an earliest opportunity is to be afforded to the detenu to make a representation against the order.

"In the present case, the right of representation to the detaining authority was rendered otiose on account of delay in execution of detention order on the detenu. The detention order dated May 19 was approved by the state government on May 28 whereas the same was served on the detenu on June 5", it said.

The plea said that the detenu was deprived of his right to make representation to the detaining authority as the detention order was approved by the state government before it was served on the detenu.

"That by virtue of explanation to section 3(2) of the National Security Act,1980 no order of detention under the National Security Act, 1980 could have been passed as the alleged act of the detenu falls within the ambit of Prevention of Black-marketing and maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980," the plea said.

The high court while dismissing her plea said that indulging in black marketing of a drug like Remdesivir in days of extreme crisis is certainly such an ugly act and fact which can very well be a reason for invoking NSA.