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, under section 8(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 2011, the Government was required to make the declaration under the proviso before the expiry of the time within which the grounds of detention had to be communicated to the detenue. (ii) Whether a declaration made after that period rendered the detention illegal.
Issue (i): Whether, under section 8(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 2011, the Government was required to make the declaration under the proviso before the expiry of the time within which the grounds of detention had to be communicated to the detenue.
Analysis: Section 8(1) cast a duty to communicate the grounds of detention as soon as may be, meaning within a reasonable and reasonably prompt time from the commencement of detention. The proviso removed that duty only in specified security-of-State cases if the Government declared that disclosure would be against the public interest. The proviso was construed harmoniously with the principal obligation in section 8(1), and with sections 10 and 14, so that the power to issue the declaration had to be exercised before the statutory right to prompt communication was lost. A delayed declaration would defeat the purpose of the safeguard and prejudice the detenue's right to make a representation.
Conclusion: The declaration under the proviso had to be made within the same time frame as the obligation to communicate the grounds under section 8(1), and not later.
Issue (ii): Whether a declaration made after that period rendered the detention illegal.
Analysis: Once the time for communication under section 8(1) expired without a valid declaration under the proviso, the detenue was deprived of the statutory right to receive the grounds and to make an earliest representation. The later declaration could not cure the defect. On that construction, the detention was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act and became illegal.
Conclusion: Yes. The detention became illegal.
Final Conclusion: The statutory safeguards in the preventive detention law were held to be mandatory and were construed to protect prompt communication of grounds and the detenue's opportunity to challenge detention.
Ratio Decidendi: A proviso dispensing with communication of detention grounds in security-of-State cases must be invoked within the period allowed for communicating those grounds, because the power and the substantive safeguard are co-terminous and must be read harmoniously to prevent defeat of the detenue's statutory right.
TaxTMI 
