9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (5) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r s. 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the communal riots that occurred in the Moradabad city. On November 6, 1982, the District Magistrate, Moradabad passed the impugned order of detention but it could not be served on the respondent as he was absconding. As required under sub-s. (4) of s. 3, the District Magistrate forthwith made a report of the fact to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh that he had passed an order for the detention of the respondent under sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the Act, together with the grounds on which the order had been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, had a bearing on the matter. The State Government received the order of detention on November 8, 1982 and approved of the same on November 11, 1982 under sub-s. (5) of s. 3, and as required thereunder, forwarded a report to the Central Government on the next day i.e. On November 12, 1982. The respondent surrendered to the police on May 24, 1983 and the impugned order of detention was served on him in District Jail, Moradabad on June 1, 1983 and the grounds of detention were furnished to him on June 2, 1983. The respondent made a representation dated June 18, 1983 thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng reliance on the decision of this Court in Phillippa Anne Duke v. State of Tamil Nadu Ors and certain of its own decisions held that the respondent had a right to make an application to the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention and the failure on the part of the Central Government to apply its mind to it made the continued detention illegal. The only question canvassed in the appeal before us is that the judgment of the High Court betrays, complete lack of awareness a of the nature of the constitutional safeguards enshrined under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. It is urged that the constitutional imperatives enacted in Art. 22(5) are two-fold; (1) The detaining authority must, as soon as maybe i.e. as soon as practicable, after the detention, communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been made. And (2) The detaining authority must afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making representation against the order of detention. In the present ease, it is said that the requirements of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution read with s. 8(1) of the Act had been duly complied with. There is no question of any violation of Art. 22(5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... properly addressed by the detenu of the Central Government was not forwarded to the Central Government, the continued detention of the detenu was held to be illegal. In Sabir Ahmed v. Union of India Ors., the Court held that non-consideration by the Central Government of a representation for revocation made by the detenu under s. 11 of the COFEPOSA Act made the continued detention to be bad, following the decision in Shyam Ambalal Siroya s case, supra. It was however observed that the power conferred by s. 11 on the Central Government was a supervisory power and it was intended to be an additional check or safeguard against the improper exercise of its power of detention by the detaining authority or the State Government. In Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab Ors, the Court went still further. There was, in that case, a lapse on the part of the State Government in forwarding the representation simultaneously made by the detenu to the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention under s. 11 of the COFEPOSA Act. The Court struck down the order of detention on the ground that there was a denial of the right of making representation to the Central Government for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8(b), nor will there arise any question of Advisory Board submitting a report to it, or on receipt of such a report confirming the order of detention under s. 8(f). It was further observed that the other types of cases would be where notwithstanding that the order of detention has been confirmed under s. 8(f), the appropriate Government may, at any time, revoke the same under s. 11 of the Act. It was accordingly held that the power of revocation conferred on the appropriate Government under s. 11 is independent of the power of confirming or setting aside an order of detention under s. 8(f). As to the nature of the power of revocation conferred on the Central Government under s. 11 of the COFEPOSA Act, it was stated: The making of an application for revocation to the Central Government under s. 11 of the Act is therefore part of the constitutional right a citizen has against this detention under a law relating to preventive detention. While Art. 22(5) contemplates the making of a representation against the order of detention to the detaining authority, which has to be referred by the appropriate Government to the Advisory Board constituted under s. 8(a) of the Act, Parliame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
