Express inquiry: individual freedom cannot be suppressed without proper application of the spirit, according to Allahabad HC

These are some of the key observations made by the Allahabad High Court as it overturned 30 of the 41 cases that showed how the National Security Act (NSA) was violated in Uttar Pradesh over the years. last two years.

Indian express follows legal records of all NSA cases that were dismissed to find out what the court said and why. Here are some key illustrative examples:


Inmate: Laiq alias Lakku

NSA published: July 31, 2017, by the District Magistrate (DM) of Kannauj, relying on the FIR alleging the slaughter of cows in “open field”.

The High Court intervenes: He recorded the accused’s observations that “a detention order was issued only on the basis of certain requests / complaints / representations made by and at the request of political parties”. He said that “subjective satisfaction as recorded (by the DM) is bad in law”, and that the government “has not been able to demonstrate what were the convincing elements of the detaining authority on which satisfaction was registered “.

Key observation: Recorded observation that “the detaining authority was unduly influenced by the representations and requests presented by the BJP town president as well as the Hindu district chairman Yuva Vahini and… the detaining authority did not assess the circumstances with a free spirit, individually and independently. “

Detainee: Inam

NSA Order Issued: On August 14, 2017, by DM Muzaffarnagar on FIR who claimed that the police had received a report from an “informant” about the slaughter of cows in a “vacant field”; The police team overheard a “conversation” that the accused “would send the material to Delhi and bring more cows … from Haryana to grow their profession.”

The High Court intervenes: He said the order was made “in a mechanical fashion … solely on the basis of the police report” and that the SM was “not at all aware of all relevant aspects of the case”.

Key observation: “It is essential that the detaining authority has given thought to whether it is necessary to detain a particular person in order to prevent him from acting in a manner detrimental to any of the purposes mentioned in the law.

Inmate: Irfan Qureshi

NSA published: August 30, 2017, by DM Azamgarh on FIR alleging the slaughter of cows inside a house.

The High Court intervenes: He recorded Qureshi’s argument that the order had been made “in a routine mindless manner” on the police report. He said the government argued that Qureshi was being held by the NSA because “there was anguish among people in the other community” but “could not point out that the petitioner’s act was damaging to public order ”.

Key observation: Quoting the Supreme Court, he said that “the right course would be to oppose the application for bail and, if it is granted, to challenge the order in the highest court, but not to do so. circumvent by issuing a detention order simply to replace the bail order ”.


Detained: Najar Qureshi

NSA published: April 13, 2018, by DM Muzaffarnagar on FIR alleging the slaughter of cows “inside a house, located behind a cemetery”.

The High Court intervenes: Notes that the order was contested on the “sole ground” that the applicant “did not have the possibility, by the Advisory Council, to be represented by a lawyer / counsel of his choice before the Council in order to enable him to bring his case effectively before the board. “But” at the time of the hearing of the case before the UP Advisory Council, Lucknow, agents of the detaining authority were present and heard during the proceedings. “

Key observation: Quoting the Supreme Court, he said: “If the detaining authority or the government takes the assistance of a lawyer or legal adviser before the Advisory Council, the detainee should be given the opportunity to appear before the Council through the intermediary of a lawyer. If he is denied this, then a clear case of violation of Article 14 is established in favor of the detainee.

Detained: Afsar

NSA published: July 26, 2019, by DM Bulandshahr on FIR alleging the slaughter of cows “inside a house”.

The High Court intervenes: Citing the government response of December 16, 2019, that a central agency official requested “an investigation / report,” he said there was no explanation “as to why the report said independent body was requested because there was no mention of the petitioner’s involvement in serious or anti-national activity ”.

He also said that a 19-day delay in providing an independent report by the central agency “remained unexplained” and ruled that “the applicant’s right under article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India was seriously violated, making his detention illegal. “

Key observation: “The agent responsible for representing the applicant acted in the most irresponsible and negligent manner and did not explain the reason for requesting the report from the Central Agency”.

Detained: Imran alias Tendu

NSA published: August 6, 2017, by DM Muzaffarnagar relying on FIR alleging the slaughter of cows “in front of a store”.

The High Court intervenes: The state government “erred in not sending the matter to the Advisory Council before extending the six-month deadline.”

Key observation: Quoting the Supreme Court, he said: “When the law prescribes that a thing must be done in a particular way according to a particular procedure, it must be done in the same way according to the provisions of the law, without deviating. of the prescribed procedure. The underlying principles cannot be ignored when passing detention orders or extending the period of detention from time to time. “


Detained: Jaheer

NSA published: July 9, 2018, by DM Hapur relying on FIR alleging slaughter of cows “inside a house”.

The High Court intervenes: He said the government underlined “reports that Hindu organizations organized protests” and that “it is safe to assume that there has been a violation of public order.” But, he noted, “the protests, if any, appear to be a consequence of the spread of information and rumors, and not a direct consequence of the act.” He said “who broke the news, with what motive, is not known.”

Key observation: “Such demonstrations are often fueled by particular interests for devious purposes which, on their own, would not transform an act constituting a simple breach of public order into an act which undermines public order”.

Detained: Shahid Qureshi

NSA published: On April 4, 2019, by DM Bulandshahr stating that Shahid and his associates welcomed participants from the Tablighi Jamaat congregation to a farm – and they went to ‘hunt’, and the meat was served as’ keema ‘and’ biryani ”to the guests.

The High Court intervenes: “… There is no evidence that while the prohibited meat was being served, a member of the majority community was present and could claim to witness the service of the prohibited meat”; there is “no evidence” to indicate that Shahid was “physically present at the time of the slaughter”; “Material only” are confessions “recorded more than 4 months after the alleged event”.

Key observation: “… The slaughter and consumption of beef per se cannot attract the provisions of the National Security Act… It would be a violation of the provisions of the Slaughter of Cows Act.”

Detained: Aman Said

NSA published: On May 23, 2019, by DM Bulandshahr on FIR alleging the slaughter of cows inside a residential complex.

The High Court intervenes: “… Documents, including the grounds for detention, indicate that the alleged disharmony / disturbance of public order, including religious feelings, was affected due to a whistleblower denunciation that rumors have spread in the region ”.

Key observation: “If a voyeur discloses the offensive activity that takes place inside the residential premises in secret to the outside world, after which resentment / protest / disharmony ensues, this cannot be attributed to a disturbance of public order… ”


Detained: Mourad Ali

NSA published: On May 21, 2018, by DM Barabanki on FIR, an “informant saw… people trying to catch a cow” in the fields.

The High Court intervenes: “There is no criminal history of the applicant and, as such, there is no history record against him”; “In such a situation, the Court is not in a position to assess the conclusion drawn by the district judge according to which the applicant is likely to engage in activities leading to a breach of public order”; “The individual liberty guaranteed to the petitioner by the Constitution of India cannot be suppressed without a good application of the spirit. “

Key observation: “… In the absence of any history, the district magistrate could not make a prediction on the future behavior of the applicant … in the case of principle and of law, the prediction must be made on the basis of an actual calculation based on relevant evidence and data. “