9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition for writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution. Allegations of inordinate delay in considering the detenu's representation, violation of detenu's right to independent consideration of representation, failure to inform detenu of right to make representation. Analysis: The detenu, an Indian citizen, was detained under the COFEPOSA Act in January 1980. He made a representation on February 20, 1980, which was considered and rejected by the detaining authority on March 26, 1980. The detenu's representation was sent to the State Government through the Superintendent of Jail, but it remained unattended for 22 days in the Inspector-General of Prisons' office. The delay in considering the representation was deemed unreasonable and a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which guarantees prompt consideration of representations in cases of preventive detention. The Court emphasized the importance of timely consideration of representations in cases of curtailed liberty, highlighting the negligence and indifference of the State functionaries in this case. The detenu's counsel raised three contentions: Firstly, the inordinate delay of about 35 days in considering the representation was argued as unreasonable. Secondly, the detenu's right to independent consideration of his representation was allegedly violated as the detaining authority rejected his representation after receiving the Advisory Board's report, indicating possible influence from the Board's views. Thirdly, it was argued that the detenu, being illiterate, was not informed of his right to make a representation, rendering his detention invalid. The Court found merit in the first contention regarding the delay, leading to the quashing of the detention order and the detenu's immediate release. The Court's decision was based on the violation of the detenu's right to prompt consideration of his representation, as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The State's negligence in attending to the detenu's representation, resulting in a delay of 22 days, was deemed unreasonable and a violation of the detenu's rights. The Court emphasized the need for careful and prompt consideration of representations in cases of preventive detention to uphold the safeguards provided by the Constitution and relevant statutes. The writ petition was allowed, the detention order was quashed, and the detenu was directed to be released immediately.
|
