9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Right to legal assistance and representation before the Advisory Board. 2. Admissibility of confession made before the police in forming the basis of subjective satisfaction. 3. Independent material about terror strike mental condition of the residents. 4. Delay in framing the order of detention. 5. Incidents pertaining to the maintenance of "public order." Detailed Analysis: Point No. 1: Right to Legal Assistance and Representation Before the Advisory Board The detenu argued that he was not informed of his right to legal assistance or to adduce evidence in rebuttal before the Advisory Board, and that the Board did not adjourn the hearing to enable him to have his next friend present for legal assistance. The court noted that the detenu was informed twice about his right of representation, first by the detaining authority on 17-5-1992 and second by the Secretary of the Board on 22-5-1992. The detenu did not respond until the actual meeting on 26-6-1992, when he made a detailed seven-page representation. The court found that there was no mandatory requirement to permit the assistance of a next friend or to adjourn the hearing suo motu. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in A.K. Roy v. Union of India, 1982 CriLJ 340, which indicated that such opportunities should be granted if requested by the detenu. However, the court found no substance in the detenu's claim as he did not request an adjournment during the meeting, and the Advisory Board was within its rights not to adjourn the matter without a request. Point No. 2: Admissibility of Confession Made Before the Police The detenu contended that his confession made before the police, which is inadmissible in evidence as per the Evidence Act or Criminal Procedure Code, cannot legally form the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The court clarified that detention is based not on facts proved as per the Evidence Act or Cr.P.C., but on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that detention is necessary to prevent prejudicial activities in the future. The court emphasized that detention proceedings are administrative in nature and not bound by strict rules of evidence. The court also noted that even "in camera" statements can be relied upon for reaching subjective satisfaction, as per Section 8(2) of the National Security Act. Point No. 3: Independent Material About Terror Strike Mental Condition of Residents The detenu argued that there was no independent material about the terror strike mental condition of the residents of the locality, leading to an inference of disturbance of even tempo. The court stated that the grounds of detention include both the factual inferences and the material on which those inferences are drawn. The court held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority cannot be questioned on the ground of insufficiency of factual material. The court referenced the case of Parkash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala, 1986 CriLJ 786, to emphasize that commonsense should not be disregarded when considering constitutional safeguards against misuse of powers by authorities. Point No. 4: Delay in Framing the Order of Detention The detenu claimed that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay in framing the order of detention. The court noted that the range of incidents was between July 1991 and December 1991, and the detenu was last arrested on 22nd December 1991 and released on bail on 18th March 1992. The Sponsoring Authority prepared the proposal on 27th March 1992, which reached the detaining authority on 8th April 1992. The order was passed on the same day but could not be served until 17th May 1992 because the detenu could not be traced. The court found that the delay was properly explained and did not result in snapping the live link between the activities and the purpose of detention. Point No. 5: Incidents Pertaining to the Maintenance of "Public Order" The detenu argued that the three incidents mentioned in the grounds pertain only to individual disputes and relate to "law and order" rather than "public order." The court distinguished between "law and order" and "public order," noting that activities creating terror in the minds of peace-loving people and disturbing the even tempo of society are prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order." The court found enough material to conclude that the detenu's activities disturbed the even tempo of the locality and had the potential for recurrence in the future. Conclusion: The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. The court found no merit in the detenu's arguments on all the points raised. The detention order was upheld as valid.
|
