9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980. 2. Consideration of documentary evidence by the Advisory Board. 3. Availability of records to the State Government at the time of confirmation of detention. 4. Non-provision of intelligence reports to the detenu. Summary: Issue 1: Compliance with Section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980 The High Court found that the representation of the detenu-respondent had not been placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks as required by s. 10 of the Act, which vitiated the continued detention. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the representation was placed before the Board on the 22nd day, a day late. The Court emphasized that while s. 10 is mandatory, the delay of one day did not amount to non-compliance given the practicalities involved. The Court held that the delay did not prejudice the detenu as the representation was before the Board four days before the hearing. Thus, the first ground was negated. Issue 2: Consideration of Documentary Evidence by the Advisory Board The High Court accepted the respondent's submission that the Advisory Board did not consider the documentary evidence produced by the detenu. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the Board, constituted by three High Court Judges, had the professional ability to assess the matter objectively. The Court found no justification for the High Court's conclusion that the Board did not consider the documentary evidence. The second ground was repelled as unsustainable. Issue 3: Availability of Records to the State Government at the Time of Confirmation of Detention The High Court found that the State Government did not have all the records when confirming the detention. The Supreme Court acknowledged that while the Act does not require the entire record to be sent, it is proper for the State Government to have all relevant materials. The Court reviewed the documents and concluded that the missing records did not contain material that would have influenced the State Government's decision. The third ground was thus dismissed. Issue 4: Non-provision of Intelligence Reports to the Detenu The High Court held that not providing copies of intelligence reports, which were relied upon in the grounds of detention, deprived the detenu of making an effective representation. The Supreme Court reiterated that while the detenu must be given all material details, the source of information need not be disclosed. The Court found that the detenu had been given sufficient material to make an effective representation. The fourth ground was deemed untenable. Conclusion: The Supreme Court found that none of the grounds accepted by the High Court were sustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the High Court quashing the detention was set aside. The Court also noted that it is for the detaining authority to decide on the release of the respondent, who had already undergone more than two-thirds of the detention period.
|
