Supreme Court quashes doctor's detention order under NSA; raps Centre & MP govt

In a key verdict, the Supreme Court struck down the detention order of a doctor who has been incarcerated under the National Security Act since May 12. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna was hearing a plea by the accused against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated August 24 that rejected his challenge to the detention order. The doctor who is a Director of the City Hospital, Jabalpur, was accused of procuring fake Remdesivir injections during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

As per the FIR registered at the Omti Police Station on May 10, these injections were administered to novel coronavirus patients to make illegal profits thereby endangering the life of the general public. A day later, the District Magistrate passed an order under the NSA detaining him for three months citing the apprehension of a law and order situation in Jabalpur. On July 5, he extended the detention of the aforesaid doctor by a further period of three months.

The Supreme Court verdict

The SC bench noted in its judgment dated October 29 that both the Centre as well as the state government had delayed its decision on the representation of the accused against the detention order. While the doctor had submitted his representation on May 18, the Centre and the MP government rejected it on June 24 and July 15 respectively. Moreover, the apex court took umbrage at the failure in timely communication of the rejection of the representation to the accused.

The bench held, "The delay by the State Government in disposing of the representation and by the Central and State Government in communicating such rejection, strikes at the heart of the procedural rights and guarantees granted to the detenu. It is necessary to understand that the law provides for such procedural safeguards to balance the wide powers granted to the executive under the NSA. The State Government cannot expect this Court to uphold its powers of subjective satisfaction to detain a person, while violating the procedural guarantees of the detenu that are fundamental to the laws of preventive detention enshrined in the Constitution."

"The AAG has furnished no reasons for the failure to communicate the State Government or Central’s government rejection of the appellant’s representation. This failure in timely communication of the rejection of representation is a relevant factor for determining the delay that the detenu is protected against under Article 22(5). Based on the precedents of this Court, we hold that the failure of the Central and the State Government to communicate the rejection of the appellant’s representation in a time-bound manner is sufficient to vitiate the order of detention," it added.