9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the detention order based on delay in disposal of representation. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a writ application filed for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus challenging a detention order passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988. The key issue raised in the application was the delay in disposing of the representation filed by the petitioners. The detention order was passed on 7th July 1988, and the petitioners were served with the order on 9th July 1988 while they were in jail. The petitioners filed a representation on 27th July 1988, which was received by the government on 1st August 1988. The representation was rejected on 2nd September 1988 after undue delay. The delay in disposing of the representation was a crucial point raised by the counsel for the petitioners. The judgment highlighted the timeline of events related to the representation filed by the petitioners. The counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Union of India acknowledged the delay in processing the representation. The court noted that there were unexplained delays in obtaining comments from relevant authorities, such as the Collector of Customs and the Assistant Collector of Customs. The court criticized the leisurely manner in which the representation was handled, emphasizing that in cases of preventive detention, prompt consideration of representations is essential to safeguard the liberty of the citizens. The court cited a Supreme Court decision where similar delays led to the quashing of a detention order, emphasizing the importance of expeditiously addressing representations in such cases. Based on the analysis of the delays in handling the representation and considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in similar cases, the judgment concluded that the petitioners' representation was not dealt with promptly. As a result, the court allowed the writ application, quashed the detention order passed by the Joint Secretary, and directed the release of the petitioners. The judgment underscored the necessity of expeditiously addressing representations in cases of preventive detention to uphold the fundamental rights of individuals.
|
