9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order under the National Security Act, 1980. 2. Violation of the detenu's right to present evidence in rebuttal before the Advisory Board. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Detention Order Under the National Security Act, 1980: The petitioner challenged his detention under an order dated 11th August 1995, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, under Section 3(1) of the National Security Act, 1980. The order mandated the detenu's detention for one year and was served on him on 14th August 1995. A report under Section 3(5) of the Act was made on 22nd August 1995, and the State Government approved the detention order on the same day. The Advisory Board was referred to on 24th August 1995, held its meeting on 15th September 1995, and submitted its report and opinion on 28th September 1995. The Deputy Chief Minister rejected the detenu's representation on 4th October 1995, and the detention order was confirmed on 5th October 1995. The grounds for detention cited the detenu's criminal record and involvement in a notorious gang, necessitating his detention to prevent actions prejudicial to public order. However, the court did not delve into these grounds due to a pivotal contention that warranted allowing the petition. 2. Violation of the Detenu's Right to Present Evidence in Rebuttal Before the Advisory Board: The detenu contended that he made a specific written request to the Advisory Board on 15th September 1995 to produce witnesses who were present outside the interview hall to rebut the allegations against him. Despite this request, the Advisory Board did not permit him to examine these witnesses, violating his rights as recognized by the Supreme Court in A. K. Roy v. Union of India. In response, the affidavit by Shri Sharad Yadav, Assistant to the Home Department Special Branch, Government of Maharashtra, and Secretary to the Advisory Board, stated that the detenu did not make any written or specific request for examining witnesses. However, the detenu's representation dated 15th September 1995, explicitly requested permission to produce witnesses. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in A. K. Roy v. Union of India, which affirmed the detenu's right to present evidence in rebuttal before the Advisory Board. The detenu must keep the witnesses present, and the Advisory Board is not obligated to summon them. The court also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Surinder Kumar Arora v. Union of India, which emphasized that a written request to examine witnesses, if presented in person, must be considered by the Advisory Board. The court noted that the Delhi High Court had similarly upheld this right in S. Venkataraman v. Union of India and Dorje Wandguchk v. Union of India. The respondents' reliance on Vijay Kumar v. Union of India was deemed inapplicable, as the facts differed. In Vijay Kumar's case, the detenu did not orally request to examine witnesses, leading the Advisory Board to believe he did not wish to do so. In contrast, the present case involved a clear written request. The court concluded that the detenu's right to examine witnesses was violated, as his written request was not honored. This failure to afford the opportunity to examine witnesses rendered the continued detention unsustainable. Conclusion: The court allowed the petition, ruling that the continued detention of the petitioner was not permissible in law due to the violation of his right to examine witnesses. The court directed that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained under another order. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.
|
