9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Challenge to detention order under National Security Act, 1980 based on non-furnishing of accurate material and grounds of detention leading to ineffective representation; Validity of detention order under Section 5A of COFEPOSA Act despite constitutional mandate infringement.
Analysis: 1. The petition challenged a detention order under the National Security Act, 1980, citing non-furnishing of accurate material and grounds of detention, which affected the detenu's right to make an effective representation. The petitioner argued that the Marathi translation of a Medical Certificate provided was inaccurate and incomplete compared to the original English version, leading to confusion for the detenu. This discrepancy violated the detenu's fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution, rendering the continued detention illegal and vitiated. 2. The Public Prosecutor contended that even if one ground of detention was found invalid, the detention order could be justified under Section 5A of the COFEPOSA Act based on other grounds. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that when a constitutional mandate like Article 22(5) is infringed, Section 5A cannot be invoked. Citing a previous case, the court held that non-supply of relevant documents would render the detention void ab initio, making it impossible to sustain the detention under Section 5A. 3. The court further explained that if the grounds of detention or relevant documents forming the basis of the detention order are not communicated to the detenu, the detention itself is invalidated. In such cases, the detention cannot be considered as per the procedure prescribed by law, and attempting to support the void order of detention under Section 5A would be futile. Therefore, the entire detention order was deemed vitiated, and Section 5A could not remedy the situation. 4. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned detention order dated January 2, 1989, and directed the immediate release of the petitioner unless required in any other case. The rule was made absolute, affirming the success of the petition challenging the detention order under the National Security Act, 1980.
|
