In 3 verdicts, Madhya Pradesh HC terms NSA in food adulteration cases illegal

Bhopal/Jabalpur: In back-to-back judgements in three cases registered during the "drive against adulteration", where National Security Act (NSA) was slapped on the accused, a division bench of MP high court has not only quashed the preventive detention of the dairy owners, but also criticised the respective district magistrates for passing an order "in a mechanical manner without application of mind."

The cases were registered at Sehore, Raisen and Khandwa respectively. During the drive against adulteration being carried out across the state, in 32 cases NSA has been imposed on the accused.

In the latest case from Khandwa, where a dairy owner, Sudeep Jain, was detained under NSA following order of the disrict collector for selling substandard milk and mawa, the division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice J P Guta said “In the present case, the reason given by the district magistrate for arriving at the opinion that the petitioner is a threat to public order, only because the sample of ghee and mawa seized tested out to be sub-standard, is ludicrous and downright preposterous, a result of contorted reasoning. Thus, the impugned order passed by the district magistrate is violative of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution and has resulted in the illegal detention of the petitioner and so, the same is quashed. However, as the Petitioner has not made a prayer for the award of deterrent compensation, no such order is being passed. However, the court preserves the right of the Petitioner to approach the state or National Human Rights Commission for such relief if he so desires".

The same bench of two judges, in a case from Raisen where NSA was imposed on Rajesh Gupta and a habeas corpus petition was filed in the high court for their release, observed "In view of the circumstances, neither the district magistrate, Raisen nor the state govt. has applied its mind at the time of passing of the orders and approval of the same. The orders have been passed mechanically without following the mandatory provisions of the law. It is bounden duty of the authority concerned to follow the mandatory provisions and observe the constitutional safeguards contemplated under Article 22(4) of the Constitution of India before passing the impugned order curtailing personal liberty of a person. Therefore, such orders cannot be allowed to stand. (See law laid down by the division bench of this court in the case of Akash Yadav Vs. State of M.P. in W.P.No.2695/2019 decided on 12.4.2019, after considering the relevant judgments of the apex court). In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders have been passed without application of mind, in a mechanical manner, which is illegal and contrary to law and as such unsustainable and deserves to be set aside".

In a case of another dairy owner from Sehore, Govind Sharma, who was detained under NSA for sale of adulterated milk, the same bench made a similar observation while setting aside the district magistrate's order. "Apparently, the order itself reflects that the authority has not applied its mind at the time of passing of the order. If a person is found to be involved in the activities of selling adulterated food or substandard products, cannot be said to be threat to the public order unless it is harmful to human consumption. Therefore, without subjective satisfaction, the order has been passed which is contrary to law, illegal and deserves to be set aside. In view of the circumstances, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside".