9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (3) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etention under the National Security Act and entitles the detenu to be released on that ground alone. As a result of a series of decisions of this Court, (a) Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal 1970CriLJ743 (b) Narendra Purshotam Umrao etc. v. B.B. Gujral and Ors. 1979CriLJ469 : (c) Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union of India and Ors. [1980]2SCR1072 (d) Frances Coralte Mullin v. W.C. Khambra and Ors. 1980CriLJ548 ; (e) V.J. Jain v. Pradhan 1979CriLJ1131 (f) Smt. Ichhu Devi Choraria v. Union of India and Ors. [1981]1SCR640 it is now well settled that the representation made by a detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution against his detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, mus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enu he has received no communication from the Government about his representation, the Additional District Magistrate has stated in his counter-affidavit that the representation was rejected on December 9, 1980 and that it was communicated to the detenu through the Superintendent of the Central Jail. The counter-affidavit mentions not a word to explain the delay in considering the representation. The only reference to the representation in the counter-affidavit is in these two sentences: It is admitted that the detenu made a representation to the Home Secretary on November 12, 1980, and the same was rejected on December 9, 1980. The rejection of the representation was communicated to the detenu through Superintendent, Central Jail by the G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s admitted . 5. The question for consideration is whether a person preventively detained under the provisions of the National Security Act is entitled to be released if there is delay in the consideration of the representation made by him to the detaining authority. It is true that the series of cases where delay in the consideration of the representation made by a detenu was held to be fatal to detention were cases which arose under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. We are however, unable to see how that would make any difference. 6. The right of detenu to have his representation considered at the earlier opportunity and the obligation of the detaining authority to consider t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain differences between the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act and the National Security Act which according to him make delay inevitable in the consideration of representations in cases of detention \ under the National Security Act. We think that the differences pointed out are irrelevant. The constitutional mandate brooks no unreasonable delay in the consideration of a representation. In the cases before us, in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 293 of 1981 and 392 of 1981 no explanation was offered by the detaining authority for the delay in the consideration of representations B and in Criminal Writ Petition No. 391 of 1981, administrative red tape was the only explanation offered. We are satisfie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
