TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the detention was invalid because the grounds were not effectively communicated to the detenue in a language and form understood by him within the time required by law and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether, after revocation of the earlier detention order, a fresh detention order could be made on the same grounds without fresh facts having arisen under Section 13(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
Issue (i): Whether the detention was invalid because the grounds were not effectively communicated to the detenue in a language and form understood by him within the time required by law and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The right under Article 22(5) requires not merely physical delivery of papers, but effective communication of the grounds so that the detenue can make a real and meaningful representation. Where the grounds are lengthy and complex, service of an English text on a person who does not understand English does not satisfy the requirement unless the grounds are communicated in a language and form understood by him within the statutory time. The belated Oriya translation did not cure the defect.
Conclusion: The detention founded on the first order was invalid against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether, after revocation of the earlier detention order, a fresh detention order could be made on the same grounds without fresh facts having arisen under Section 13(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
Analysis: Section 13(2) authorises a fresh detention order only where fresh facts have arisen after revocation or expiry of the earlier order. The provision was read as barring a new order based on the same grounds that had already supported the revoked order. The language of the section was treated as including revocation of invalid as well as valid orders, and no fresh facts were shown to justify the second order.
Conclusion: The fresh detention order was incompetent and could not stand.
Final Conclusion: The detention of the appellant was unsustainable in law and the order of release followed from the invalidity of the detention orders.
Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, grounds must be effectively communicated so as to enable a real representation, and after revocation of a detention order a fresh order can be made only on fresh facts arising thereafter.
TaxTMI 
