9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in passing the detention order. 2. Delay in disposing of the representation made under Article 22 of the Constitution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Passing the Detention Order: The petitioner challenged the detention order dated 5th June 1991, arguing that there was a long delay in passing the order, which caused the link between the detention and the prejudicial activities to snap. The petitioner was initially arrested on 17th April 1990, and the detention order was passed after approximately 14 months. The detaining authority attempted to explain the delay by stating that additional information was requested from the sponsoring authority multiple times, which was only provided in May 1991. However, the court found this explanation unsatisfactory, noting that there was no material on record to show when the proposal was received or what actions were taken between June 1990 and May 1991. The court emphasized that the delay was unexplained and showed a lack of satisfaction by the detaining authority. Citing precedents, the court concluded that the unexplained delay vitiated the detention order, as the live link between the incident and the purpose of preventive detention had snapped. 2. Delay in Disposing of the Representation under Article 22: The petitioner also argued that his representation seeking copies of documents relied upon by the respondents was not disposed of expeditiously. The representation was made on 30th July 1991, but the respondent claimed it was received on 1st August 1991 and comments were sought from the sponsoring authority on the same day. The comments were received on 20th August 1991, resulting in an unexplained delay of 17 days. The court held that the delay in disposing of the representation was against the well-settled principle of law that such representations must be handled expeditiously. The court found that the respondent's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay deprived the petitioner of a reasonable opportunity to defend his case. The court emphasized that it was the responsibility of the respondent to expedite the process and that the petitioner should not suffer due to the sponsoring authority's delay. Conclusion: The court accepted the petition, set aside the detention order, and made the rule absolute. The petitioner was ordered to be released if not required in any other case. The court highlighted the importance of timely actions by the authorities and the need for satisfactory explanations for any delays to uphold the principles of justice and individual liberty.
|
