Shahdol Man Wrongly Imprisoned for Over a Year Due to Bureaucratic Error

A young man from Shahdol district, Madhya Pradesh, endured over a year of wrongful imprisonment under the National Security Act (NSA) due to a bureaucratic error. The Madhya Pradesh High Court intervened in September 2024, ordering his release and imposing significant accountability on the officials responsible for the mistake.

Judicial Intervention and Accountability

The case centers around Sushant Bais, who was mistakenly identified as an NSA detainee in a legal document related to a private dispute. The actual suspect in the case was Nirajkant Dwivedi. In a critical misstep, Kedar Singh, the district collector, signed the order without verifying the details, leading to Sushant’s unjust detention.

The High Court, led by Justices Vivek Agarwal and A K Singh, found that there was a clear non-application of mind by Singh, who admitted to the error during court proceedings. As a result, the court ordered Singh to pay a fine of Rs 2 lakh to Sushant, whose wrongful imprisonment has had profound personal implications, particularly as he is newly married.

Contempt Notice and Government Criticism

In addition to imposing a fine, the court issued a contempt notice to Kedar Singh for submitting a false affidavit. This legal action came after a petition from Sushant’s father, Hiramani Bais, who argued that his son was unfairly jailed on September 9, 2024. The court underscored that the state government failed to properly scrutinize the detention order, demonstrating a lack of diligence.

The additional chief secretary of home, who acknowledged that the error stemmed from a typographical mistake by a clerk, informed the court that the employee had received a show-cause notice. The court’s decision highlights the broader implications of bureaucratic errors, emphasizing the need for greater accountability in governance.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of meticulous attention to detail in legal and bureaucratic processes. It raises critical questions regarding the safeguards in place to protect individuals from wrongful detention and the need for systemic improvements to prevent similar incidents in the future.