Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 preventive detention order was liable to be quashed because there was an unexplained delay of about two and a half months in executing the order, throwing doubt on the genuineness of the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction.
Analysis: The detention order was founded on the District Magistrate's subjective satisfaction under section 3(2)(i) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The material showed that the petitioner was not arrested for about two and a half months after the order was made, and no explanation for that delay was furnished in the affidavit-in-reply. The Court held that, where the detenu was available for detention and the State failed to explain a prima facie unreasonable delay in arresting him, the Court could legitimately doubt whether the detaining authority had really applied its mind and reached a genuine satisfaction that detention was necessary.
Conclusion: The unexplained delay negatived the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction and the detention order was invalid.
Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, an unexplained and prima facie unreasonable delay in executing the detention order may that the detaining authority did not genuinely apply its mind, thereby vitiating the order.