9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to detention order under National Security Act, 1980; Breach of constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) - non-furnishing of material statements; Alleged diversion of government funds leading to detention. Analysis: 1. The appellant, a Superintending Engineer in the Electricity Department of the Government of Manipur, was detained under the National Security Act, 1980, for allegedly extending financial help to an unlawful organization. The detention order was challenged on the grounds of breach of constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) due to the non-furnishing of material statements considered by the detaining authority. The appellant was not provided with copies of statements crucial to his case, depriving him of the opportunity to make an effective representation against his detention. 2. The detaining authority relied on statements indicating the appellant's involvement in procuring bill forms and letterheads through coercion, influencing the diversion of government funds to the unlawful organization. However, the appellant was not given access to these statements for his defense, impeding his ability to challenge the grounds of detention effectively. The failure to provide these crucial statements constituted a violation of the appellant's constitutional rights. 3. Moreover, the grounds of detention alleged an actual diversion of government funds by the appellant, which was contested by him based on office records showing unpaid bills. The detaining authority's counter-affidavit acknowledged the bills were passed for payment, indicating an attempt to divert funds. This discrepancy raised concerns about the detaining authority's consideration of facts, leading to a lack of proper application of mind in issuing the detention order. 4. The Supreme Court held that the non-furnishing of essential statements prevented the appellant from making an effective representation, constituting a clear breach of the constitutional safeguard. Additionally, the discrepancies regarding the alleged diversion of government funds and the detaining authority's understanding of the situation further undermined the validity of the detention order. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and confirmed the appellant's release, upholding the importance of upholding constitutional rights in matters of detention under preventive laws.
|
