M. KATJU, J. Heard. 2. The petitioner is challenging the detention order dated 26-11- 2002 Annexure-1 to the petition passed under the N. S. A. Copy of the grounds of detention is Annexure-2. 3. Several submissions have been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner but the very first submission is sufficient for allowing this petition. 4. It has been stated in para 28 of the petition that the petitioners representation against the impugned detention order was sent to the Central Government. In the counter-affidavit of the Central Government it has been stated in para 6 that the petitioners representation dated 21-12-2002 alongwith parawise comments of the detaining authority was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 30-12-2002. It is further stated in para 6 of the said counter-affidavit that since the representation was addressed to the Home Secretary, Government of U. P. Lucknow and not to the Central Government it was returned back to the U. P. Government for action under Section 8 of the NSA. 5. In para 6 of the counter-affidavit of the Deputy Jailor, Arun Kumar Singh, it has been stated that the representation of the petitioner dated 21-12-2002 was addressed to the Secretary, (Home) U. P. Lucknow but copy was addressed to the Chairman, Advisory Board, Lucknow and the Secretary, Home, Central Government, North Block, New Delhi. 6. In para 12 of the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate, Allahabad it has been stated that copy of the representation was sent to the Central Government through Speed Post and it has been admitted in the counter-affidavit of the Central Government that they have received the said copy. The question which arises in this case is that if a representation by a detenu under N. S. A. is addressed to the State Government, but in the same representation at the bottom it is mentioned that a copy is being sent to the Central Government also, whether this will amount to making representation to the Central Government also. In our opinion it will, since this is a matter of individual liberty of citizens and hence a narrow view should be eschewed. Such copy endorsed to the Central Government, in our opinion, will amount to making a representation to the Central Government also. In our opinion it will, since this is a matter of individual liberty of citizens and hence a narrow view should be eschewed. Such copy endorsed to the Central Government, in our opinion, will amount to making a representation to the Central Government also. If we take a different view then we wonder for what purpose a copy is being sent to the Central Government. 7. Article 21 of the Constitution is the most important provision amongst the Fundamental Rights as held by the Supreme Court in several decisions and it is the duty of this Court to safeguard the liberty of the citizens. The law of preventive detention is an exception to the ordinary rule that no one should be kept in Jail without a regular trial, and hence it must be strictly construed. Letters de cachet which prevailed in France up to the French Revolution of 1789 are abhorrent to democracy. In England the Magna Charta of 1215 proclaimed that citizens should not be detained without a trial. 8. Article 21 of the Constitution, which gives the rights to liberty, is the normal rule, and Article 22, which provides for preventive detention, can only be construed as an exception to Article 21. If we hold the Article 22 will ordinarily prevail over Article 21 we will logically be led to the strange conclusion that the people have the fundamental right to be preventively detained (since Article 22 is in Part III of the Constitutions ). Such prevention is clearly unacceptable. 9. Hence the law of preventive detention must be construed strictly against the State and in favour of citizens. All the procedural requirements of the law of preventive detention must be complied with, otherwise the detention will become illegal. In the present case the petitioners representation has not been decided by the Central Government and this clearly makes the detention of the petitioner illegal. 10. The petition is hence allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith until he is required in some other criminal or preventive detention case. Petition allowed. .