9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of detention order under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950. 2. Compliance with legal formalities in expressing executive action in the name of the Governor. 3. Verification of affidavits and sufficiency of evidence in proving the validity of the detention order. 4. Claim of privilege under article 22(6) of the Constitution regarding disclosure of certain facts. Analysis: 1. The Supreme Court heard an appeal regarding the release of a respondent detained under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 by the Bombay High Court. The respondent was initially arrested by the District Magistrate, Belgaum, beyond their jurisdiction. The High Court found the detention invalid, leading to a review of multiple cases, including the respondent's. The Government of Bombay issued fresh detention orders in some cases, including the respondent's, citing the necessity to prevent actions prejudicial to public order. 2. The High Court judges based their decision on the defective expression of the detention order in the name of the Governor, as required by Article 166(1) of the Constitution. They contended that the order did not explicitly state the Governor's involvement, leading to a lack of protection under clause (2) of Article 166. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the order sufficiently indicated it was made on behalf of the Governor, meeting the substantive requirements despite minor formal deviations. 3. The High Court also raised concerns about the verification of affidavits to prove the validity of the detention order. They requested multiple affidavits, including from the Minister in charge, to establish the order's legitimacy. The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of proper verification but highlighted that the sufficiency of evidence required for such cases is fact-specific. They emphasized that the means of knowledge and belief of the affiant play a crucial role in determining the validity of the order. 4. Additionally, the State Government claimed privilege under Article 22(6) of the Constitution regarding the disclosure of certain facts to the detenu. While the grounds provided were deemed specific enough, the Government asserted privilege over other information based on public interest. The Supreme Court refrained from delving deeper into this issue due to the respondent not facing re-arrest, ultimately setting aside the High Court's release order.
|
