Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the detaining authority and the State Government were bound to consider the detenu's representation independently and with reasonable expedition, and whether delay and deferment until after the Advisory Board's opinion violated the constitutional and statutory safeguards governing preventive detention.
Analysis: The constitutional guarantee under Article 22 and the scheme of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 require the appropriate Government to afford the detenu the earliest opportunity to make a representation and to consider that representation on its own, uninfluenced by the Advisory Board. The obligation is independent of the Board's consideration under the statutory scheme. No hard and fast period can be fixed, but the duty is to act as early and expeditiously as possible because personal liberty is at stake. On the facts, the representation was not shown to have been considered promptly, the explanation for delay was inadequate, and the State appeared to have awaited the Advisory Board's opinion before deciding the matter, showing lack of independent judgment.
Conclusion: The representation was not considered in the manner required by law, and the detention could not be sustained.