1980 (1) TMI 201 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in deciding the representation filed by the detenu under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court delivered a judgment regarding a writ petition seeking to quash an order of detention passed against the petitioner under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The primary issue revolved around the inordinate and unexplained delay by the detaining authority in deciding the representation submitted by the detenu. The Court emphasized that any unexplained delay in deciding the representation amounts to a violation of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India and can vitiate the detention. The detenu has the right to have the representation considered by the appropriate Government and a Board constituted under the concerned Act. The Court highlighted that the detaining authority must independently decide on the representation without waiting for the opinion of the Board. The obligation to consider the representation expeditiously is crucial to uphold the constitutional guarantee under Art. 22(5).

Furthermore, the Court referenced previous decisions to emphasize the importance of promptly disposing of representations filed by detenus. It was noted that the detaining authority cannot delay the decision based on the views of the Board and must act swiftly in considering the representation. The Court rejected arguments about delays due to the representation passing through various channels, emphasizing that the detaining authority must act promptly once the representation reaches them. Even if there was a reasonable explanation for initial delays, any unjustified delay in deciding the representation can render the detention void. Ultimately, the Court allowed the petition, set aside the order of detention, and directed the immediate release of the detenu based on the unreasonable delay in deciding the representation, which violated the detenu's rights under the Constitution.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of promptly considering representations filed by detenus under preventive detention laws, highlighting that any unjustified delay in decision-making can lead to the detention being declared void. The detaining authority is obligated to independently assess the representation without waiting for the opinion of the Board, ensuring that the detenu's rights under the Constitution are upheld and respected.