9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Detention under s. 2-A of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, dismissal of the Writ Petition by the High Court, preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, compliance with Art. 22(5) regarding the right to make representation, the duty of the State to justify detention in a habeas corpus petition, legality of detention in conformity with Art. 22, and the necessity of a speaking order when rejecting representation. Detention under s. 2-A of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act: The petitioner challenged his detention under s. 2-A of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, claiming the detention was to prevent him from acting prejudicially to public order. The detention order was confirmed by the Government based on the Advisory Board's opinion, which found sufficient grounds for detention. The petitioner's representation was dismissed by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, leading to the Writ Petition in the High Court, which was rejected. Dismissal of the Writ Petition by the High Court: The High Court rejected the Writ Petition challenging the detention order, citing reasons such as the petitioner's previous conviction and vague grounds provided for detention. The petitioner then moved to the Supreme Court under Art. 32, questioning the legality of the detention and the process followed by the State Government. Preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition: The State raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the High Court's dismissal under Art. 226 operates as res judicata. However, the Supreme Court rejected this objection, citing previous judgments that dismissed the application of res judicata in similar cases. Compliance with Art. 22(5) regarding the right to make representation: The petitioner contended that the State's failure to consider and determine his representation promptly rendered the detention illegal, as the right to make representation is a valuable right implicit in clause (5) of Art. 22. The Court emphasized the importance of promptly considering detenu representations, as outlined in previous judgments. Duty of the State to justify detention in a habeas corpus petition: The Court discussed the State's duty to justify detention in a habeas corpus petition, stating that the State must set out clear and specific facts justifying the detention. Failure to provide a sufficient return could lead to the declaration of detention as illegal. Legality of detention in conformity with Art. 22: The Court highlighted the necessity for the State to comply not only with the mandatory provisions of the Act but also with the requirements of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. The petitioner's specific allegations of delay in considering and rejecting his representation led the Court to hold the detention illegal. Necessity of a speaking order when rejecting representation: The Court addressed the requirement for a speaking order when rejecting a representation, emphasizing that the State must provide reasons and basis for rejecting the representation. The lack of a counter affidavit from the State explaining the delay in considering the detenu's representation resulted in the Court ruling the detention as illegal, directing the detenu to be set free.
|
