9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to detention order under Defence of India Rules. 2. Application of mind by the authority ordering detention. 3. Grounds for detention and satisfaction of the authority. 4. Casualness in passing the detention order. 5. Responsibility of the Minister in issuing detention orders. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the detention order issued under r. 30- (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, contending that it was not based on the satisfaction of the State Government. The order mentioned six grounds for detention, including acting prejudicially to various aspects. The petitioner argued that the Minister did not apply his mind adequately before ordering detention, which led to a deprivation of personal liberty without proper justification. 2. The Court emphasized the importance of the authority acting responsibly when depriving a citizen of liberty, especially during an emergency. The order of detention should reflect a careful consideration of the grounds justifying detention, as highlighted in s. 44 of the Act. The Court scrutinized whether the authority had acted with due care and caution in this case, emphasizing the need for a proper application of mind before passing a detention order. 3. The Court noted discrepancies between the grounds mentioned in the order and those stated in the Minister's affidavit, indicating casualness in the decision-making process. While the order listed multiple grounds for detention, the Minister's satisfaction was based on only a few, suggesting a lack of thorough consideration. The Court highlighted the necessity for the authority to be satisfied about each ground justifying detention before issuing an order. 4. Another aspect indicating casualness was the use of the disjunctive "or" instead of the conjunctive "and" when listing the grounds for detention. This choice in wording reflected a lack of detailed consideration and mirrored a copy-paste approach from the legal provisions without proper analysis. The Court viewed this as further evidence of casualness in passing the detention order. 5. The Court rejected the State's argument that the Minister was not responsible for discrepancies in the order, stating that the Minister holds accountability for ensuring the order aligns with their satisfaction. Even if the Minister did not physically write the order, they are still responsible for its content and compliance with the grounds justifying detention. The Court emphasized that no detention order should be passed without the proper satisfaction and application of mind by the authorized authority. In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition, ruling that the petitioner was entitled to release due to the order of detention being passed without the required application of mind by the authority concerned.
|
