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 failure to supply the detenu with copies of the documents and materials relied upon by the detaining authority within the prescribed time violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 3(3) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, thereby rendering the detention illegal.
Analysis: The detention was founded on materials placed before the detaining authority, including documents seized from the premises and relied upon in forming subjective satisfaction. Those materials were not supplied to the detenu within the period required by the statute. The detenu was thus deprived of the ability to make an effective and meaningful representation against the detention. The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) and the statutory requirement under Section 3(3) operate as mandatory conditions for valid continuance of preventive detention, and non-compliance vitiates the detention.
Conclusion: The detention was illegal and void for non-supply of the relied upon documents within the prescribed time, in violation of Article 22(5) and Section 3(3).
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the detention order was quashed with a direction to release the appellant forthwith.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the detaining authority relies on particular documents or materials, they must be furnished to the detenu within the constitutionally and statutorily prescribed time so that an effective representation can be made; failure to do so invalidates the detention.