Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1987 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1987 (10) TMI 220 - SC - Indian LawsDetention order vitiated by inordinate and unexplained delay in dealing with representation of detenu
Issues:
Challenge to detention under the National Security Act based on delay in considering representation. Analysis: The petitioner was detained under the National Security Act, 1985, on grounds of activities prejudicial to defense and security. The petitioner challenged the detention primarily on the basis of inordinate delay in considering his representation, alleging a violation of his rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The representation was made on 18th December, 1986, received by the government on 14th January, 1987, and rejected on 26th February, 1987. The delay in disposal of the representation was the key contention raised by the petitioner. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of promptly addressing representations in cases of preventive detention to safeguard the fundamental rights of individuals. Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted that delays in considering detenus' representations could render the detention order invalid. Notably, in a similar case, a delay of 22 days in addressing a representation was deemed unreasonable and violated the detenu's rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that the State has a duty to handle representations with utmost expedition when an individual's liberty is at stake. Failure to do so can lead to the detention being deemed unlawful. In this case, the delay of over a month in disposing of the petitioner's representation was considered excessive and a violation of his constitutional rights. The respondent raised objections regarding the validity of the representation made by the petitioner's advocate and argued that the delay was due to this factor. However, the Court dismissed these contentions, stating that no legal impediment exists for advocates to represent detenus, and the delay could not be justified on this basis. The Court emphasized that the delay itself, not the form of representation, was the critical issue. Furthermore, the respondent argued that the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition by the High Court negated any prejudice caused by the delay. However, the Court rejected this argument, noting that the dismissal of the writ petition did not substitute for the State Government's consideration of the representation, which could delve into the factual basis of the detention order. The Court distinguished this case from previous judgments where delays in representations did not vitiate detention orders due to specific circumstances. Ultimately, the Court found the delay in addressing the petitioner's representation unjustified and a violation of his constitutional rights, leading to the setting aside of the detention order. The judgment underscored the importance of promptly handling detenus' representations to uphold their fundamental rights under the Constitution.
|