DATE OF THE CASE: 20 July, 2021
APPELLANT: L. Raghumani Singh
RESPONDENT: District Magistrate, Imphal West District, Manipur and Ans.
BENCH/JUDGES: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud Justice M.R. Shah
LEGAL PROVISIONS: The Constitution of India, 1949 (Article 21), The National Security Act, 1980
FACTS:
- Leichombam, a Manipuri activist was apprehended by the police on May 13, 2021 after a complaint was filed against him by Usham Deben Singh, the vice-president of BJP Manipur for censuring the Manipur President belonging to BJP, S. Tikendra Singh shortly after his death.
- The activist uploaded a Facebook post contending that “the cure for corona is not cow dung and cow urine. The cure is science and common sense. Professor ji RIP.
- On May 17, 2021 he was granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Imphal West. However, the District Magistrate, Imphal West smacked the National Security Act (NSA) against Erendro Leichombam taking into consideration the police report.
- Therefore, a petition was filed by L Raghumani Singh, the father of Erendro to the Supreme Court against the unlawful detention of his son and infringement of his fundamental right as he was detained inappropriately.
ISSUES RAISED:
- Whether it was appropriate to detain the activist under the NSA[2] Which was a preventive detention act?
- Whether the fundamental right of the activist was being infringed?
CONTENTION:
Arguments from the Petitioner’s Side:
The learned counsel from the petitioner side contented that the activist was detained under NSA only because he criticized the BJP leader.
It was advocated that the preventive detention provisions which were applied to the case were unnecessary as the case did not even require the simple penal provisions.
The plea from the petitioner side also asserted that the provisions of the preventive detention were misused by the government to bottle up the opinion of the activist who criticized the BJP leader for recommending cow dung and cow urine as a remedy to Covid-19.
The counsels also argued that mere criticism of the government does not amount to public disorder.
Arguments from the Respondent’s Side:
The learned counsel from the respondent side argued that the activist, Erendro Leichombam was a habitual offender of the government and the NSA was imposed on him to hamper his further activities.
It was also argued that the Facebook post was to incite political, social and religious agitation among people.
The counsels contended that preventive detention measures were taken to maintain public order.
It was asserted that the Manipuri Activist was also charged with sedition for commenting against the government on social media.
RATIONALE: The hegemony of Article 21[3] under which protection of life and liberty is provided is enshrined in the recent case of L. Raghumani Singh v. District Magistrate, Imphal West. In the aforementioned case the Manipuri Activist Erendro Leichombam censured a BJP Leader by his Facebook post for recommending cow dung and urine as an antidote to coronavirus. He was arrested for the same and the District Magistrate of Imphal West issued the stringent provision of NSA which was a preventive detention law. A petition was filed by the father of the activist stating that the preventive detention measures were unnecessary for such an elementary speech. He also contended that the government was misusing its executive power for taking revenge from the activist as he criticized the BJP government. The Supreme Court directed for the release of Erendro Leichombam as it was against the Fundamental Right of life and liberty.
The court articulated that no one can be detained for such speech. Therefore, the court ordered the Manipur Central Jail to release the activist before 5PM. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta wanted the case to be listed the other day, however, the bench said that it would direct interim relief the same day.
The bench said that “We are of the view that continued detention of the petitioner would be a violation of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. We accordingly direct that the petitioner shall be released forthwith subject to interim directions of this court and subject to further orders and him filing a personal bond of Rs. 1,000
DEFECTS OF LAW: The Constitution of India, 1949
Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. [4]
The National Security Act, 1980: The Act provides for preventive detention in certain cases and matters connected therewith. The Act focuses on maintaining law and order in the country and provides for detention of individuals who try to impede the law-and-order situation of a state or country.[5]
INFERENCE:
In the case of L. Raghumani Singh v. District Magistrate, Imphal West, the activist Erendro was apprehended for criticizing the late BJP Leader for advocating cow dung and cow urine as the cure of Covid-19. He was granted bail but the District Magistrate, Imphal West imposed preventive detention measures. The petition was filed by his father as his fundamental right was being violated.
The Supreme Court concluded its decision by ordering the release of the Manipuri Activist.
As per my understanding of the case, the judgment of the Supreme Court is felicitous. In a democratic country like India every person has the right to life and personal liberty and they have a right to enjoy it with the minimal interference.
The judgement also highlights the same.[6]
[1] Writ petition(s) (criminal) no(s). 266/2021
[2] NSA: NATIONAL SECURITY ACT 1980.
[3] Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
[4] Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1949.
[5] The National Security Act, 1980
[6] By Vaishali Bhugra Pursuing B.com llb 4th year from University of Petroleum and Energy Studies