TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the detenu was supplied sufficient particulars of the grounds of detention to enable him to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the detention order was vitiated for alleged non-application of mind or for non-supply of the entire evidence and source material; (iii) whether the detention was rendered invalid because the counter-affidavit was not filed by the detaining authority and because of the alleged difficulty in instructing counsel before the Advisory Board.
Issue (i): Whether the detenu was supplied sufficient particulars of the grounds of detention to enable him to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The requirement of Article 22(5) is that the grounds of detention must be communicated with enough basic facts and material particulars to permit a meaningful representation. The grounds served on the detenu contained the place, date, time, occasion, approximate gathering, and the substance of the allegedly provocative speech. The supplementary extract from the CID report, though incomplete in some respects, was supplied along with the grounds and did not introduce any ambiguity or detract from the substance of the allegation. Read together, the grounds and the supplied material furnished all essential particulars.
Conclusion: The particulars supplied were sufficient and the contention of denial of an effective opportunity of representation failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the detention order was vitiated for alleged non-application of mind or for non-supply of the entire evidence and source material.
Analysis: The challenge that the detaining authority acted without applying its mind was rejected because the grounds showed that the authority had before it the relevant material, and the omission in the extract supplied to the detenu did not mean that the authority lacked the complete report. The law does not require disclosure of the evidence gathered, the source of information, or corroborative material, so long as the basic facts and material particulars forming the grounds are communicated. The supplied material was therefore legally adequate.
Conclusion: The detention order was not invalid on the grounds of non-application of mind or non-disclosure of evidence and source material.
Issue (iii): Whether the detention was rendered invalid because the counter-affidavit was not filed by the detaining authority and because of the alleged difficulty in instructing counsel before the Advisory Board.
Analysis: The absence of a counter-affidavit from the detaining authority was treated as an impropriety but not, in the facts of the case, a vice that vitiated the detention, especially in the absence of mala fides. The complaint regarding inability to instruct counsel before the Advisory Board was also found unsupported, as the detenu was represented by counsel and no effective prejudice was shown.
Conclusion: Neither ground invalidated the detention.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the matter was sent back for consideration of the remaining contentions.
Ratio Decidendi: For preventive detention, Article 22(5) is satisfied when the detenu is furnished the basic facts and material particulars necessary for an effective representation; disclosure of the underlying evidence or source information is not required.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
