1979 (5) TMI 153 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Chief Secretary to reject representations.
2. Delay in confirming the detention order.
3. Delay in providing copies of documents.
4. Delay in considering the representation.
5. Non-placement of the second representation before the Advisory Board.
6. Influence of incorrect belief about detenu's nationality on the detention order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Chief Secretary to reject representations:
The first contention questioned the competence of the Chief Secretary in rejecting the representations made by the detenu on 23rd February and 27th March 1979. The argument was that the representations should have been decided by the appropriate Government, which in this case would be the Lt. Governor of Delhi. The Court held that the right to make a representation under Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution imposes a duty on the detaining authority to consider it. The Court referred to the principles laid down in Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal, emphasizing that the appropriate authority must consider the representation independently and without delay. The Court concluded that the representations were correctly addressed to the Chief Secretary, who was the detaining authority, and thus competent to consider them. Therefore, the failure to submit the representation to the State Government did not vitiate the detention order.

2. Delay in confirming the detention order:
The second issue was the delay of three days in confirming the detention order, which was argued to be beyond the prescribed period of three months. The Court examined the original file and found that the Lt. Governor had confirmed the order on 27th April 1979, but it was communicated on 30th April 1979. Therefore, the confirmation was within the prescribed period, and the contention of delay was rejected.

3. Delay in providing copies of documents:
The third issue was the delay in providing copies of the documents requested by the detenu on 9th February 1979, which were supplied on 7th March 1979. The Court noted that the request included a long list of documents, and the time taken to prepare and supply these copies was not unreasonable. The Court also highlighted the importance of keeping copies of relevant documents ready to make the constitutional right of representation effective. However, in this case, the delay was not deemed unreasonable.

4. Delay in considering the representation:
The fourth issue was the delay in considering the representation made on 23rd February 1979, which was rejected on 21st March 1979. The Court referred to the principles in Sukul's case, stating that while there is no hard and fast rule on the time taken to consider a representation, the Government must act vigilantly. The Court found that the time taken to consider the representation was not unreasonable and did not vitiate the detention order.

5. Non-placement of the second representation before the Advisory Board:
The fifth issue was the alleged non-placement of the second representation dated 27th March 1979 before the Advisory Board. The Court examined the original file and confirmed that the second representation was forwarded to the Advisory Board on the day it was received. Therefore, the contention that the representation was not placed before the Advisory Board was rejected.

6. Influence of incorrect belief about detenu's nationality on the detention order:
The final issue was whether the detaining authority's incorrect belief that the detenu was a Pakistani national influenced the detention order. The Court found no evidence that the detaining authority was influenced by the detenu's nationality. The Court noted that the detenu's applications for Indian citizenship had been rejected, but this did not affect the detaining authority's decision. The contention that the detention order was influenced by an extraneous consideration was thus rejected.

Conclusion:
The Court found no merit in any of the contentions advanced on behalf of the detenu. The petition for habeas corpus was dismissed, with no order as to costs.