1984 (2) TMI 367 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Non-furnishing of vital documents and statements.
2. Use of disjunctive language in the detention order.
3. Non-furnishing of court proceedings and denial statements.
4. Compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-furnishing of Vital Documents and Statements:

The petitioner argued that the detention order was invalid due to the non-furnishing of the taxi driver's statement and the detenu's retraction letter dated 1-9-1983. The court examined whether these documents were material to the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. It was concluded that the driver's statement was not material as it did not implicate the detenu, and the retraction letter was received after the detention order was issued, thus not affecting the order's validity.

2. Use of Disjunctive Language in the Detention Order:

The petitioner contended that the use of the disjunctive word 'or' instead of the conjunctive 'and' in the detention order indicated non-application of mind by the detaining authority. The court referred to previous judgments and distinguished between the concepts of public order and security of the state, which are distinct, and the activities under the COFEPOSA Act, which are interrelated. The court found that the use of 'or' did not invalidate the order as the activities were interconnected and often overlapped.

3. Non-furnishing of Court Proceedings and Denial Statements:

The petitioner claimed that the non-furnishing of the court proceedings where the detenu and others retracted their statements and the department's denial of torture allegations violated Article 22(5). The court held that the detaining authority considered the detenu's complaints and the absence of visible injuries as noted by the Magistrate. The non-furnishing of the denial statement was not deemed material as it was not relied upon by the detaining authority.

4. Compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India:

The court emphasized the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5), requiring the detenu to be informed of the grounds of detention and provided an opportunity to make a representation. It was reiterated that all basic facts and materials influencing the detaining authority's decision must be communicated to the detenu. The court found that the detenu was furnished with all material documents, and the non-furnishing of immaterial documents did not infringe upon the constitutional rights.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the detention order did not suffer from any constitutional infringement or illegality. The non-furnishing of certain documents and the use of disjunctive language did not vitiate the order, as the detaining authority had sufficient material to arrive at a subjective satisfaction for detention.