9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Legibility of documents affecting the right to make representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 2. Delay in passing the detention order affecting the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. 3. Retention of passport preventing detenu from engaging in similar activities justifying detention. 4. Effect of untranslated documents on detenu's right to make representation. 5. Joint remand application creating a wrong impression of conspiracy. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the detention order citing illegible documents affecting the detenu's right to representation. The High Court dismissed this argument, stating that despite blurred endorsements on the detenu's passport, he was aware of his visits to Singapore as confirmed in his statement under Section 39 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The court held that the detenu's right to make an effective representation was not hampered by the lack of specific dates of arrival back into India from Singapore. 2. The petitioner raised concerns regarding the delay in passing the detention order, contending it affected the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the time taken for proper consideration and subjective satisfaction in issuing a detention order is reasonable. Citing legal precedents, the court highlighted that the test of proximity is not a rigid measure and does not solely determine the validity of the detention order. 3. The petitioner argued that retaining the detenu's passport prevented him from engaging in similar activities, thus questioning the justification for detention. The court disagreed, stating that the mere retention of the passport does not preclude the necessity for detention. The court accepted the detaining authority's inference that without detention, the detenu would likely continue his illegal activities, justifying the detention order. 4. Another contention raised was the absence of translated documents affecting the detenu's right to representation. The court dismissed this argument, noting that the detenu's proficiency in English, Hindi, and Sindhi, as confirmed in his statement, indicated that the lack of Hindi translations did not impede his ability to understand the grounds of detention. 5. The petitioner alleged that a joint remand application created a false impression of conspiracy involving the detenu. The court refuted this claim, stating that the remand application specified the individual roles and incidents of each accused, clarifying that the detenu was not portrayed as part of a larger conspiracy. The court found no merit in this contention and dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of upholding the detention order.
|
