9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Filing of counter affidavit by an inappropriate authority. 2. Delay in the consideration of the detenu's representation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Filing of Counter Affidavit by an Inappropriate Authority: The judgment emphasizes the necessity for the detaining authority to file the counter affidavit in response to a Rule Nisi, as established in previous cases such as *The State of Bombay v. Purushottam Jog Naik* and *Ranjit Dam v. State of West Bengal*. It is not a rigid rule but a preferred practice to ensure that the affidavit is sworn by someone with personal knowledge of the case. The Court condemned the practice of allowing police officers, who have no personal connection or knowledge of the proceedings, to swear counter and reply affidavits. In this case, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had no involvement in the detention order or its processing, filed the affidavits, which the Court found unacceptable and rejected them. 2. Delay in the Consideration of the Detenu's Representation: The detenu's representation was delayed by 27 days, which the detaining authority attempted to justify through the Deputy Superintendent of Police's affidavit. The Court found this explanation insufficient, particularly noting an unexplained delay of 7 days by the Assistant Secretary. The Court reiterated the constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which requires the detaining authority to consider and dispose of the detenu's representation with reasonable dispatch. The unexplained delay constituted a breach of this constitutional obligation, rendering the detention order invalid. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of detention due to the inappropriate filing of the counter affidavit and the unexplained delay in considering the detenu's representation. The appeal was allowed, and the detenu was directed to be released immediately.
|
