TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was vitiated for non-application of mind because the grounds were substantially lifted from the sponsoring authority's draft and the detaining authority did not independently formulate the grounds; (ii) Whether non-consideration and non-supply of relevant material, including the writ petition proceedings and stay order of the Madras High Court, vitiated the detention order for want of an effective opportunity to make representation.
Issue (i): Whether the detention order was vitiated for non-application of mind because the grounds were substantially lifted from the sponsoring authority's draft and the detaining authority did not independently formulate the grounds.
Analysis: The detention scheme under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 requires the satisfaction to be that of the specially empowered detaining authority. The material showed that draft grounds had been prepared at the sponsoring level, that similar phrasing, chronology, errors and even an erroneous invocation of Section 3(d) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act were carried into the final grounds, and that subordinate officers had prepared the grounds before the detaining authority had independently applied her mind to the proposal. This established that the process was influenced by a pre-determined approach and that the essential decision-making function was not exercised independently by the detaining authority.
Conclusion: The detention order was held to be vitiated for non-application of mind and was invalid on this ground.
Issue (ii): Whether non-consideration and non-supply of relevant material, including the writ petition proceedings and stay order of the Madras High Court, vitiated the detention order for want of an effective opportunity to make representation.
Analysis: The right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India requires that all relevant and vital material forming the basis of detention be considered and, where relied upon, supplied to the detenu so that an effective representation can be made. Although the Court did not accept the objection regarding the counter affidavit's statement that investigation was at an initial stage, it found that the fact of the Madras High Court writ petition and the interim stay were considered by the detaining authority but were not reflected in the grounds of detention and were not supplied with the detention papers. Since this material formed part of the subjective satisfaction and was relevant to the detention decision, non-supply prejudiced the detenu's constitutional right of representation.
Conclusion: The detention order was held to be vitiated for non-supply of relevant material and violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Final Conclusion: The detention could not be sustained because the decision-making process suffered from non-application of mind and a constitutional defect in the supply of relied upon material, so the preventive detention order was quashed and the detenu was directed to be released.
Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, the detaining authority must independently apply its mind to the material before recording subjective satisfaction, and all relied upon or otherwise vital material bearing on that satisfaction must be disclosed to the detenu to enable an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
TaxTMI 
