Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 1982 (9) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1982 (9) TMI 237 - SC - Customs

Issues:
Detention order validity - consideration of representation
Detention order validity - consideration of retracted confession
Detention order validity - impact on mental health

Analysis:

Detention order validity - consideration of representation:
The detenu argued that the representation made was not considered by the detaining authority, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court clarified that the Home Minister, who rejected the representation, acted on behalf of the State Government, as per established rules of business. Referring to previous cases, the court held that whether the Home Secretary or the Home Minister disposed of the representation is immaterial, as both are authorized to act on behalf of the State Government. Consequently, the contention was dismissed based on precedents.

Detention order validity - consideration of retracted confession:
The detenu contended that his retracted confessional statement was not considered by the detaining authority and should have been forwarded to the Advisory Board. The court noted that the retraction letter reached the Customs authorities after the detention order was issued, making it impossible for the detaining authority to consider it. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the detenu, being highly qualified and present before the Advisory Board, could have informed them of the retraction. As a result, the court rejected the argument, emphasizing that the Advisory Board's consideration was based on the material before the detaining authority.

Detention order validity - impact on mental health:
The detenu claimed to have suffered a mental disorder due to continued detention, supported by a report from a Senior Psychiatrist. The Supreme Court, concerned about this assertion, directed the detenu to undergo examination by a psychiatric department. Subsequently, a report certified that the detenu did not suffer from any unsoundness of mind. The court awaited the original report but ultimately dismissed the contentions, as the psychiatric report contradicted the claim of mental disorder due to detention. The court concluded that there was no merit in any of the contentions presented, leading to the dismissal of both the petition and the special leave petition.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates