9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order of detention based on procedural irregularities and denial of opportunity to plead case before Advisory Board. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the order of detention, alleging procedural irregularities and denial of the opportunity to present his case before the Advisory Board as permitted by law. The contention focused on the denial of the right to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board. The COFEPOSA Act, specifically Section 8(e), states that a detenu is not entitled to appear by a legal practitioner. However, the Act does not prohibit the Advisory Board from allowing representation by a legal practitioner in specific cases. The Supreme Court emphasized that while there is no legal right for a detenu to be represented by a lawyer, the detenu can request legal assistance, which must be considered on its own merit. In the case of A. K. Roy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court noted that a detenu does not have the right to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board. The Court highlighted the importance of legal assistance for safeguarding fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Additionally, the detenu has the right to produce and examine witnesses before the Advisory Board to rebut allegations made against them. The judgments of the Supreme Court establish key propositions regarding the representation of detenus: there is no legal right for a detenu to be represented by a legal practitioner, but if the department is represented by legal counsel, the detenu should have a similar right. A detenu can request legal representation, and the Advisory Board must consider such requests on their merits. Furthermore, a detenu has the right to present evidence in rebuttal before the Advisory Board. In the specific case under review, the Advisory Board denied the petitioner's request to be represented by a legal practitioner based on the practice of not allowing legal representation. This denial without considering the merits of the request was deemed contrary to legal principles established by the Supreme Court. The petitioner, being a foreign national, should have been given the opportunity to be represented by a legal practitioner, and the denial amounted to a violation of the petitioner's right to proper representation. Regarding the petitioner's request to produce witnesses, the Advisory Board's directive to submit affidavits instead of allowing oral testimony was challenged. While the method of presenting evidence is at the discretion of the receiving authority, the denial of the opportunity to produce witnesses in person was considered a violation of the petitioner's rights. Consequently, the continued detention of the petitioner was deemed illegal, and the order of detention was set aside, entitling the petitioner to immediate release.
|
