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 Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu could validly make and consider a detention order under the preventive detention law on his own, and whether the order was vitiated for want of aid and advice of the Council of Ministers; (ii) whether non-supply of certain prior statements and the grievance as to service of the detention order in Gujarati infringed the detenu's right to make an effective representation; (iii) whether the detenu had a right to be represented by a legal practitioner or other agent and to have an oral hearing before the detaining authority or the Advisory Board, and whether refusal of such hearing misled him; and (iv) whether the procedure before the Advisory Board was invalid for denial of cross-examination, rebuttal evidence, or fair consideration of the detention.
Issue (i): whether the Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu could validly make and consider a detention order under the preventive detention law on his own, and whether the order was vitiated for want of aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Analysis: The statutory scheme treated the Administrator of a Union Territory as the 'State Government' for the preventive detention law, while the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, required the Administrator to act with a Council of Ministers only in the ordinary executive field, subject to express exceptions and the special proviso enabling reference to the President where there was disagreement. The reasoning distinguished the Administrator's position from that of a Governor acting under Articles 74 and 163 of the Constitution of India. It was held that the Administrator could act in his own right in matters of detention, and the record also showed consideration through the Chief Minister before the order was passed.
Conclusion: The detention order was not invalid on the ground that the Administrator acted without binding aid and advice; the challenge failed.
Issue (ii): whether non-supply of certain prior statements and the grievance as to service of the detention order in Gujarati infringed the detenu's right to make an effective representation.
Analysis: The materials showed that the detenu had been supplied with the relevant statements and documents relied upon, and the grounds of detention were communicated in Gujarati. The formal order in English was treated as a recital of the statutory source of power, while the grounds themselves conveyed the substance of the allegations in a language understood by the detenu. No prejudice to the making of an effective representation was shown.
Conclusion: There was no violation of the detenu's constitutional right on these grounds; the challenge failed.
Issue (iii): whether the detenu had a right to be represented by a legal practitioner or other agent and to have an oral hearing before the detaining authority or the Advisory Board, and whether refusal of such hearing misled him.
Analysis: Clause (e) of the preventive detention statute expressly disentitled a detenu from appearing by a legal practitioner in matters connected with the Advisory Board. The constitutional scheme of Article 22 permitted preventive detention laws to exclude the ordinary right of legal representation, and the right to make a representation under Article 22(5) was held to contemplate a written representation, not an oral hearing. The request made by counsel was treated as a request for appearance as counsel, not as a non-lawyer friend or true agent, and the response that representations could be sent through jail authorities did not mislead the detenu.
Conclusion: The detenu had no enforceable right to oral hearing or appearance through counsel before the detaining authority or Advisory Board, and the refusal caused no illegality.
Issue (iv): whether the procedure before the Advisory Board was invalid for denial of cross-examination, rebuttal evidence, or fair consideration of the detention.
Analysis: The governing law and the constitutional scheme did not confer a right of cross-examination before the Advisory Board, because the Board's function was to examine whether sufficient cause existed for detention, not to adjudicate guilt. The record showed that the detenu was personally questioned in Gujarati and that the Board's report covered both the validity of the detention when made and on the date of its report. The allegation that representatives of the detaining authority were present while the detenu was unassisted was unsupported, and no request had been made for examination of witnesses as defence witnesses before the Board.
Conclusion: The Advisory Board procedure was not shown to be illegal or discriminatory; the challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The detention orders were sustained, and all writ petitions failed on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters under the stated statutory scheme, the Administrator of a Union Territory may act in his own authority, the detenu's representation need not be accompanied by legal representation or oral hearing, and the Advisory Board proceeding does not carry a right of cross-examination.
TaxTMI 
