9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The legality of the order of detention passed under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 due to delay in execution. Summary: The appellant challenged the order of detention passed under Section 3 of the Act, which was executed after a significant delay. The appellant argued that the delay in execution vitiated the order. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of individual liberty and the necessity of laws on preventive detention. It was highlighted that the order under Section 3 should be executed promptly upon satisfaction to prevent prejudicial activities. The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that unexplained delays in executing detention orders cast doubt on the genuineness of the detaining authority's satisfaction. The Court held that unexplained delays in execution would vitiate the order. In the present case, the respondents failed to provide sufficient details of the steps taken to execute the order during the delay period. The Court noted that the order, passed in 1997, was executed in 1998, allowing the detenu to continue his activities, raising questions about the nature of the alleged prejudicial activities. The Court concluded that the delay in execution undermined the satisfaction of the authorities and quashed the order of detention, directing the immediate release of the detenu unless required in another case. In a separate judgment, a related Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous. The appeal was allowed, and the petition was dismissed.
|
