1980 (8) TMI 209 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in furnishing copies of documents and statements relied upon in the grounds of detention.
2. Delay in granting an interview to the detenu with his lawyer.
3. Counter-affidavit not affirmed by the detaining authority.
4. Consideration of irrelevant matters.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Furnishing Copies of Documents and Statements:
The petitioner argued that there was an impermissible delay in furnishing copies of the documents and statements relied upon in the grounds of detention, which violated Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution. The respondent countered that the grounds of detention served were elaborate and contained all necessary information for making an effective representation. The Court noted that while the "grounds" include basic facts and materials, further particulars must be supplied with reasonable expedition. In this case, the grounds were elaborate, but the additional particulars took 17 days to be supplied, which the Court deemed not unreasonable given the circumstances, including the complexity of the case and ongoing investigations. Therefore, the delay did not amount to a denial of the detenu's right to make an effective representation.

2. Delay in Granting Interview with Lawyer:
The petitioner claimed there was an unreasonable delay of about 20 days in granting an interview with the lawyer, rendering the detenu's statutory right under Rule 14(xii) of the Gujarat Condition of Detention (COFEPOSA) Order 1975 meaningless. The respondent argued that the delay was inconsequential as Article 22 denies the detenu the right to consult a lawyer, though the State Government had granted this as a concession. The Court found that the delay in granting the interview did not affect the detenu's constitutional right to make a representation. The detenu was allowed an interview with his lawyer on February 20, 1980, and the copies of documents were received on March 11, 1980. Despite these, the detenu did not make any representation, indicating no prejudice was caused.

3. Counter-Affidavit Not Affirmed by Detaining Authority:
The petitioner contended that the counter-affidavit was not affirmed by the detaining authority but by another officer based on information from the record. The respondent clarified that the detention order was passed by the Home Minister and authenticated by the Deputy Secretary, who also filed the counter-affidavit. The Court overruled this contention, noting that no personal mala fides were alleged against the Minister, and it was not necessary for the Minister to file the counter-affidavit himself.

4. Consideration of Irrelevant Matters:
The petitioner argued that irrelevant matters were taken into consideration in the grounds of detention. The respondent maintained that these were introductory facts or the history of the case. The Court negated this contention, stating that the so-called irrelevant matters were merely introductory and did not affect the validity of the detention order.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the delay of 17 days in furnishing the copies of documents was not unreasonable and did not infringe upon the detenu's constitutional rights. The delay in granting an interview with the lawyer was also deemed inconsequential. The counter-affidavit was validly affirmed, and the consideration of introductory facts did not invalidate the detention order. The Court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the circumstances and legal principles involved.