1980 (4) TMI 319 - SC - Indian Laws

Government's Delay in Considering Detainee's Representation Deemed Unlawful. Detention Set Aside.

The court found that the Central Government's failure to consider the detenu's representation promptly, lasting about four months, violated constitutional ... - Issues Involved:1. Competence of the Minister of State to dispose of the representation.2. Expeditious handling of the representation by the State Government.3. Rejection of the application for obtaining copies of relevant documents.4. Delay and inaction by the Central Government in considering the representation for revocation of the detention order.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Competence of the Minister of State to Dispose of the Representation:The petitioner argued that the Minister of State was not competent to dispose of the representation of the detenu, as the Order dated December 3, 1979, made by the Chief Minister did not invest him with the necessary authority. The representation was dealt with by the Minister of State and rejected on December 10, 1979, following the Advisory Board's report on December 6, 1979.2. Expeditious Handling of the Representation by the State Government:The petitioner contended that the representation was not dealt with expeditiously by the State Government. The representation was sent for remarks to the Customs Department on November 18, 1979, and the report was received by the State Government on November 28, 1979. This delay was considered mechanical and not in line with the requirement for expeditious handling.3. Rejection of the Application for Obtaining Copies of Relevant Documents:The detenu's application for obtaining copies of the relevant documents was improperly rejected, depriving him of his constitutional right to make an effective representation. This was argued as a violation of his rights under the Constitution.4. Delay and Inaction by the Central Government in Considering the Representation for Revocation of the Detention Order:The petitioner argued that the Central Government had callously ignored the representation made by the detenu on November 19, 1979, for revocation of the detention order under Section 11 of COFEPOSA. This delay and inaction, which exceeded four months, vitiated the detention. Reliance was placed on the judgments in Shyam Ambalal Siroya v. Union of India and Tara Chand v. The State of Rajasthan.The respondents contended that Section 11 of COFEPOSA merely conferred discretion on the Central Government to revoke or modify a detention order and did not confer any right on the detenu to make a representation. The power under Section 11 was argued to be a supervisory power, intended to be exercised suo motu by the Central Government.The court held that the power conferred by Section 11 on the Central Government carries with it a duty to consider any representation made by the detenu expeditiously. The Central Government must discharge its supervisory responsibility with vigilance and care, and any communication or petition received from the detenu must be considered with reasonable expedition.The court found that the Central Government had not considered the detenu's representation, which was sent on November 19, 1979. This inaction, which lasted about four months, was deemed a violation of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering the detention unconstitutional and void.Conclusion:The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the detention, and directed the release of the detenu. The judgment emphasized the duty of the Central Government to consider representations made by detenus under Section 11 of COFEPOSA with reasonable expedition, and any failure to do so would vitiate the detention. The reasons for allowing the writ petition and ordering the detenu's release were provided in support of the order dated March 14, 1980.