TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Protects Detainee's Rights in Detention Order Challenge</h1> <h3>HARIPAL HIRALAL LAHOT Versus D. SIVANANDHAN, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THANE</h3> HARIPAL HIRALAL LAHOT Versus D. SIVANANDHAN, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THANE - TMI Issues:Challenge to detention order under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 - Right to produce witnesses and examine them before the Advisory Board - Sufficiency of time given to detenu to exercise his rights.Analysis:The petition challenged a detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, on the grounds that the detenu was not adequately informed of his right to produce witnesses and examine them before the Advisory Board, as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The detenu was served notice on the same day as the Advisory Board meeting, leaving him with only one and a half hours to decide on representation. The detenu was informed that he could be assisted by a non-legal practitioner friend and could have witnesses present during his interview before the Advisory Board.The contention raised was that providing such a crucial right to the detenu but giving him only an hour to decide was a futile exercise, rendering the detention unjust. The detenu's counsel cited relevant judgments to support the importance of this right, emphasizing the need for adequate time for the detenu to make such decisions. The Supreme Court's guidelines on procedural fairness for the Advisory Board were highlighted, stressing the importance of equal opportunity for both the State and the detenu in the process.The detenu's counsel argued that the detenu should have been given a full and proper opportunity to exercise his rights, which was not the case due to the short notice provided. The judgment acknowledged the vital nature of the right granted to the detenu and concluded that the detenu was not given sufficient time to make an informed decision, thus ruling in favor of the detenu. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the rule was made absolute, and the detenu was ordered to be released immediately unless required in another case.
TaxTMI 