9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the failure of the Advisory Board to adjourn the hearing when it rejected the detenu's request for the assistance of a legal practitioner will vitiate the order of detention. 2. Whether the confessional statement made by the detenu to the police officer is admissible in cases of detention under a Preventive Detention Act such as Tamil Nadu Act No. 14 of 1982. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Failure of the Advisory Board to Adjourn the Hearing: The petitioner argued that the Advisory Board should have adjourned the hearing when it rejected his request for legal assistance, even though he did not request an adjournment. The Division Bench in Suresh's case had previously held that the Advisory Board should give sufficient time for the detenu to prepare his case for oral representation if legal assistance is denied. However, the Full Bench found that this view needed reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Tusher Govindji Shah v. Union of India, which held that unless the detenu specifically requests assistance, there is no duty on the Advisory Board to adjourn the hearing. The Full Bench referred to the procedural provisions of the Act, specifically Section 11(1) and 11(5), which do not entitle the detenu to legal representation during the Advisory Board's proceedings. The Supreme Court's decision in A. K. Roy v. Union of India was also cited, which clarified that the denial of legal representation to a detenu is not unfair, unjust, or unreasonable. The Full Bench concluded that the Advisory Board is not obligated to adjourn the hearing unless the detenu requests it, and any failure to adjourn does not automatically vitiate the detention order unless prejudice is shown. 2. Admissibility of Confessional Statements: The second issue concerned whether a confessional statement made by the detenu to a police officer can be considered by the detaining authority. The Division Bench in Duraiswamy Mudaliar's case had held that Section 25 of the Evidence Act, which bars the use of confessions made to police officers against the accused, should apply by analogy to preventive detention cases. However, another Division Bench in W.P. No. 351 of 1985 disagreed, stating that the provisions of the Evidence Act do not apply to preventive detention proceedings. The Full Bench agreed with the latter view, emphasizing that preventive detention is an administrative action based on suspicion and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The proceedings are neither criminal nor quasi-criminal, and the detaining authority can consider any material, including confessional statements. The Full Bench concluded that the confessional statement made by the detenu to a police officer can be considered relevant material for detention, but its weight is for the detaining authority to decide. Conclusion: 1. The Advisory Board is not obligated to adjourn the hearing suo motu when it rejects the detenu's request for legal assistance, and the detention order is not vitiated unless prejudice is shown. 2. Confessional statements made by the detenu to a police officer can be considered as relevant material by the detaining authority for making an order of detention.
|
