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>State's Delay in Considering Detenu's Representation Renders Detention Illegal</h1> <h3>SK. Sekawat Versus The State of West Bengal</h3> SK. Sekawat Versus The State of West Bengal - 1975 AIR 64, 1975 SCR (2) 161 Issues involved:The validity of an order of detention u/s 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 due to failure of State Government to consider the representation of the detenu promptly.Judgment Summary:The Supreme Court in this case dealt with a petition challenging the validity of an order of detention made by the District Magistrate u/s 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The petitioner contended that the detention was unlawful as the State Government confirmed the order without considering his representation promptly, violating Art. 22(5) of the Constitution and section 7 of the Act. The Court emphasized the importance of the State Government promptly considering the detenu's representation upon receipt. It highlighted that the State Government's duty to consider the representation is independent of the Advisory Board's opinion and must be done before confirming the detention order.The Court referred to the principles laid down in Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal, emphasizing that the State Government must exercise its judgment on the representation before sending the case to the Advisory Board. Even if the Advisory Board opines in favor of detention, the State Government is not bound to confirm the order without considering the representation. The Court stressed that the State Government's failure to consider the representation promptly renders the detention illegal, as seen in B. Sunder Rao and Ors. v. State of Orissa.In this case, the State Government received the petitioner's representation before confirming the detention order but failed to consider it promptly. The subsequent consideration and rejection of the representation could not rectify the initial failure. Consequently, the Court set aside the order of detention, declared it illegal and void, and directed the immediate release of the petitioner.Therefore, the Court upheld the petitioner's contention, emphasizing the State Government's obligation to promptly consider the detenu's representation to ensure the legality of the detention order.
TaxTMI 