9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of detention order under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. 2. Delay in considering and rejecting the representation made by the detenu. 3. Compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution regarding communication of grounds of detention and prompt consideration of representations. 4. Precedents regarding unexplained delays in considering detenu representations. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment concerns the detention order made under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. The petitioner challenged his detention through a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The State Government approved the detention order after receiving the District Magistrate's report and the Advisory Board's opinion. However, a delay of 27 days in considering and rejecting the petitioner's representation was left unexplained, leading to the invalidation of the detention order due to the unexplained delay. 2. The judgment emphasized the importance of promptly considering detenu representations under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Any undue delay by the detaining authority in disposing of such representations could render the detention invalid. Citing precedents like Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal, the Court stressed the need for immediate consideration of detenu representations to safeguard personal liberty effectively. The unexplained delay in this case was deemed sufficient to invalidate the detention. 3. Referring to past decisions, the judgment highlighted the dual obligation of the Government and the corresponding right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The detaining authority must provide the detenu with the earliest opportunity to make a representation, which should be considered and disposed of expeditiously. Failure to do so, as seen in previous cases like Prof. K.L. Singh v. State of Manipur and Baidya Nath Chunkar v. State of West Bengal, has resulted in the invalidation of detentions. The Court reiterated that any unexplained delay in considering detenu representations would undermine the detenu's Constitutional rights and render the detention illegal. 4. Ultimately, the Court accepted the petition and made the rule absolute, thereby upholding the petitioner's challenge against the detention order based on the unexplained delay in considering his representation. The judgment serves as a reminder of the strict adherence required by detaining authorities to promptly address detenu representations to uphold the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
|
