1990 (5) TMI 230 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal challenges the correctness of the judgment made by the High Court of Delhi in a Criminal Writ Petition regarding the order of detention u/s 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The main contention raised is the inordinate delay in considering and disposing of the detenu's representation, alleging violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Delay in Considering Representation:
The appellant contended that there was an unexplained delay in processing his representation, which was forwarded to the sponsoring authority on 25.8.1989 but comments were received only on 11.9.1989. This delay was deemed significant as both the detaining and sponsoring authorities were located in Delhi. The appellant argued that such delay violated the detenu's constitutional right under Article 22(5) and cited relevant case law to support his claim.

Legal Precedents and Constitutional Obligations:
The Court referred to various decisions emphasizing the importance of promptly considering and disposing of a detenu's representation to safeguard personal liberty. It was highlighted that any delay in this process must be explained satisfactorily by the authorities. The Court reiterated that the gravity of allegations in the detention order cannot justify overlooking procedural delays, emphasizing the fundamental right to personal liberty under the Constitution.

Decision and Ruling:
In light of the appellant's argument and the legal precedents cited, the Court found the unexplained delay in processing the detenu's representation to be a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the detenu to be released unless detained for another valid reason. The judgment underscored the paramount importance of adhering to constitutional obligations and procedural safeguards in cases of preventive detention.

Conclusion:
The Court's ruling emphasized the need for authorities to promptly address detenus' representations to uphold constitutional rights and prevent arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty. The judgment serves as a reminder of the critical role of procedural fairness and timely review in safeguarding individual freedoms within the framework of preventive detention laws.