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 Invalidates Detention Order Over Delay in Review Process</h1> <h3>Kantilal Bose Versus State of W.B</h3> Kantilal Bose Versus State of W.B - 1972 AIR 1623, 1972 (2) SCC 529 Issues:1. Validity of detention order under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970.2. Delay in considering and rejecting the petitioner's representation by the State Government.Analysis:Issue 1: The petitioner filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging his detention under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. The District Magistrate had ordered the petitioner's detention with the aim of preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order. The detention order was approved by the State Government and subsequently confirmed on October 11, 1971. The petitioner's representation was considered by the Advisory Board, which found sufficient cause for the detention. However, the petitioner argued that the delay in considering his representation invalidated the detention. The Supreme Court referred to previous cases emphasizing the importance of promptly considering a detenu's representation to safeguard personal liberty. The Court held that the unexplained delay of 28 days in considering and rejecting the petitioner's representation rendered the detention invalid, in line with established legal principles.Issue 2: The petitioner contended that the State Government took 28 days to consider and reject his representation, which was not adequately explained. The Court cited precedents where delays in considering representations were deemed unconstitutional and led to the release of the detenus. The Court highlighted the dual obligation of the Government to independently consider a detenu's representation and the necessity for expeditious action to protect fundamental rights. The State Government's failure to provide a valid explanation for the delay in this case led the Court to conclude that the detention was unlawful. Despite a reference to a case where a similar delay did not result in release due to lack of specific pleading, the Court found in favor of the petitioner due to the additional grounds raised and the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and made the rule absolute, releasing the petitioner from detention.
TaxTMI 