9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in disposal of representation. 2. Proper application of mind in the order of detention. 3. Non-disclosure of intelligence report. 4. Denial of representation by counsel or non-lawyer friend before the Advisory Board. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Disposal of Representation: The petitioner argued that the representation made against the detention on November 24, 1984, received by the Chief Minister's office on November 28, 1984, and disposed of only on January 28, 1985, was delayed, thereby vitiating the detention. The court noted that another representation by the Khed Taluka Maratha Seva Sangh was received on November 29, 1984, and disposed of expeditiously by December 13, 1984. The High Court had previously determined that the delay in disposing of the petitioner's representation did not prejudice the detenu's case, as the representation was essentially a second one on the same grounds. The Supreme Court agreed with this finding, concluding that no tenable submission on the score of delay could be made. 2. Proper Application of Mind in the Order of Detention: The petitioner contended that the detention order was based on the flimsy statement of an accomplice, Sabnis, and lacked proper application of mind. The court emphasized that the satisfaction required for detention under the law is subjective and not for the court to test the adequacy of the material. The detaining authority had accepted Sabnis's statement linking the detenu to the contraband, and this satisfaction was reached on a bona fide basis. The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument and rejected the submission. 3. Non-Disclosure of Intelligence Report: The petitioner claimed that the grounds of detention mentioned contact between the detenu and Yusuf Herro based on an intelligence report, which was not furnished to the detenu, thus violating Article 22 of the Constitution. The court noted that the Special Secretary had clarified that no independent intelligence report was placed before him and that the detenu's involvement with Yusuf Herro was based on Sabnis's confessional statement. The High Court had previously found no force in this point, relying on a precedent where privilege was claimed against disclosure of intelligence sources. The Supreme Court concluded that sufficient material had been disclosed to the detenu and no prejudice was caused by the non-disclosure of the exact intelligence report. 4. Denial of Representation by Counsel or Non-Lawyer Friend: The petitioner argued that the detenu's request to be represented by a lawyer or a non-lawyer friend before the Advisory Board was not entertained, affecting the guarantee of limited defense. The court referred to the precedent set in A.K. Roy v. Union of India, which held that a detenu does not have the right to legal representation before the Advisory Board but can be assisted by a non-lawyer friend. The Advisory Board had inquired whether the detenu had brought a friend, which he had not. The Board assessed that the detenu was capable of representing himself. The court found no prejudice in the detenu's representation before the Advisory Board and agreed with the State's position that the detenu was in a fit condition to represent his case effectively. Conclusion: Since all four submissions advanced by the petitioner were rejected, the writ petition was dismissed. The court upheld the order of detention and found no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner.
|
