9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 2. Non-consideration of the detenu's representation by the appropriate government. 3. Obligation of the Advisory Board to forward the representation to the government. 4. Legality of the confirmation of the detention order without considering the detenu's representation. Summary: 1. Violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India: The appellant challenged the preventive detention of A. Maheshraj u/s 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Act, alleging a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The appellant argued that the detenu's representation to the Advisory Board was not considered by the appropriate government, rendering the detention unconstitutional. 2. Non-consideration of the detenu's representation by the appropriate government: The detenu made a representation to the Advisory Board but did not submit any representation to the Government of India, the State Government, or any other authority. The High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition, noting that the detenu did not request the Advisory Board or jail authorities to forward his representation to the government. 3. Obligation of the Advisory Board to forward the representation to the government: The Court examined whether the Advisory Board had a duty to forward the detenu's representation to the government. It was argued that the Advisory Board should transmit the representation to the government, which had a corresponding obligation to consider it before confirming the detention order. However, the Court found no statutory or constitutional duty on the Advisory Board to forward the representation to the government. 4. Legality of the confirmation of the detention order without considering the detenu's representation: The Court held that the detenu was informed of his right to make a representation to the appropriate government. Despite this, the detenu chose to address his representation only to the Advisory Board. The Court found that the appropriate government was justified in confirming the detention order based on the available records, excluding the representation made to the Advisory Board. The Court concluded that the order of detention was neither unconstitutional nor illegal due to the alleged failure of the government to consider the representation. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or jurisdiction in the orders of the High Court, the detaining authority, and the confirming authority. The Court also noted the apology from Shri M.B. Prakash, Principal Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, for not referring to the documents upon which the confirmation order was based, and closed the matter concerning him.
|
