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 Overturns Detention Quash Order, Highlights Prompt Handling of Detainee Representations for Liberty.</h1> <h3>UNION OF INDIA Versus YUMNAM ANAND M @ BOCHA @ KORA @ SURAJ & ANR</h3> UNION OF INDIA Versus YUMNAM ANAND M @ BOCHA @ KORA @ SURAJ & ANR - 2007 (5) SCR 60, 2007 (10) SCC 190, 2007 (5) JT 520 2007 (5) SCALE 606 Issues:Challenge to judgment allowing habeas corpus petition based on delay in disposal of representation under National Security Act, 1980.Analysis:The appeal challenged the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, which quashed the detention order based on delay in disposing of the representation made by the detenu. The High Court held that the delay was not properly explained, and the views of the sponsoring authority were deemed unnecessary. The appellant contended that this view contradicted previous Supreme Court decisions. The detenu filed a writ petition against the detention order, citing unusual delay in disposal.The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of expeditiously considering representations made by detainees under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The detention order, based on subjective satisfaction, must adhere to procedural requirements to avoid infringing on the detenu's constitutional rights. The Court highlighted the significance of personal liberty protected under Article 21 and the need for strict compliance with procedural safeguards in cases of preventive detention.The Court referenced previous cases to address the necessity of obtaining views from the sponsoring authority. In Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, the Court emphasized the importance of consulting the sponsoring authority for comments on representations, highlighting the need for a meticulous approach to preventive detention laws. Similarly, in Dr. Prakash v. State of T.N., the Court explained the standard procedure of seeking remarks from the detaining authority to ensure a fair consideration of representations.Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, deeming it indefensible. However, the detaining authority was directed to decide within two months whether to take the respondent back into custody. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the necessity of following proper procedures in cases of detention under the National Security Act, 1980.
TaxTMI 