9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of detention under Preventive Detention Act. 2. Sufficiency of grounds communicated for detention under article 22(5). Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a medical practitioner in Delhi, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, with the District Magistrate citing involvement in unlawful activities by political organizations. The petitioner's counsel argued that the District Magistrate did not properly consider the necessity for detention, pointing out a chronological error in the grounds provided. However, the District Magistrate's affidavit stated careful consideration based on reports by Intelligence Officers, leading the Court to reject the argument of lack of application of mind in issuing the detention order. 2. The second contention raised was regarding the sufficiency of the grounds communicated for detention, particularly focusing on the vagueness of one ground related to the petitioner's alleged involvement in organizing a movement. The Court considered the interpretation of the vague ground and the impact of vague grounds on the overall validity of detention. It was argued that the petitioner should have been provided with clearer particulars to enable effective representation against the detention order, as mandated by article 22(5). The Court emphasized the importance of constitutional safeguards in preventive detention cases, highlighting the need for detainees to have adequate information to challenge their detention effectively. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the petition, directing the immediate release of the petitioner due to the failure to provide sufficient particulars for one of the grounds of detention, thereby ruling the detention not in accordance with the procedure established by law. The judgment underscores the significance of upholding constitutional safeguards in preventive detention cases to protect individual liberties.
|
