1980 (9) TMI 272 - SC - Indian Laws

Writ of habeas corpus for the release of the detenu Held that - The detenu has a constitutional right under Article 22(5) to be furnished with copies of all the materials relied upon or referred to in the grounds of detention with reasonable expedition. Delay tends to stultify the detenu s right to make an effective representation and to have it considered speedily by the authority concerned. The delay in supplying the copies to the detenu in the facts of the instant case being inordinate and unreasonable had vitiated the continuance of his detention. It was on this short ground we had by our Order dated May 7 1980 allowed this writ petition and ordered the release of the detenu - allowed this writ petition and ordered the release of the detenu forthwith.

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in supplying copies of documents and materials relied upon in the grounds of detention
- Violation of detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation

Analysis:
In Writ Petition (Crl.) 481 of 1980, the detenu was arrested in connection with alleged illegal remittances. He was later detained under COFEPOSA, and his representations for copies of documents were not promptly addressed. The detenu's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution to be furnished with materials for effective representation was violated due to unreasonable delays in supplying the copies. Despite repeated requests, copies were not provided promptly, leading to a delay of about 82 days, which was deemed unreasonable by the Court. The Court emphasized the detenu's right to receive copies of all materials relied upon in the grounds of detention with reasonable expedition, and the delay in this case vitiated the detention, leading to the detenu's release.

In Writ Petition (Crl.) 528 of 1980, a similar situation arose where the detenu's detention order was challenged due to delays in providing copies of documents and materials relied upon in the grounds of detention. The detenu's requests for copies were not promptly addressed, leading to a delay of about 24 days. Moreover, specific documents, such as statements of material witnesses, were not provided to the detenu, further hindering his ability to make an effective representation. The Court found that the delays in furnishing the copies of materials violated the detenu's constitutional right to an effective representation, ultimately resulting in the detenu's release.

Both cases highlighted the importance of promptly providing detenus with copies of materials relied upon in detention orders to ensure their constitutional rights are upheld. The Court emphasized that delays in providing such copies can undermine the detenu's ability to make an effective representation, thereby impacting the legality of their detention. As a result, the Court ordered the release of the detenus in both cases due to the unreasonable delays in supplying the necessary documents, thereby upholding their rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.