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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the detention order under the COFEPOSA Act was vitiated by non-application of mind because the relied upon documents were forwarded in stages, the material was voluminous, and the detaining authority's affidavit did not clearly disclose when and how the documents were considered.
Analysis: The relied upon record showed multiple batches of documents being sent to the detaining authority on different dates, with further inputs even on the date of the detention order. The affidavit filed in support of the detention did not clearly identify which documents were received with the proposal and which were received later, nor did it satisfactorily explain the sequence in which the material was examined. The explanation was found to be confusing and contradictory when compared with the sponsoring authority's affidavit and the file produced before the Court. In preventive detention matters, the authority must demonstrate real and conscious application of mind to all relevant material before recording subjective satisfaction. On the facts, the unexplained handling of the material and the vagueness in the affidavits showed that the detention order had been issued in a casual and mechanical manner.
Conclusion: The detention order was held to be vitiated by non-application of mind and was quashed.