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>Supreme Court Orders Immediate Release Due to Unjustified Delay in Detention Review</h1> <h3>ASLAM AHMED ZAHIRE AHMED SHAIK Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> ASLAM AHMED ZAHIRE AHMED SHAIK Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1989 (42) E.L.T. 330 (SC), 1989 AIR 1403, 1989 (2) SCR 415, 1989 (3) SCC 277, 1989 (2) JT 34, 1989 ... Issues:- Appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing a writ petition challenging the order of detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.- Allegation of undue delay in disposing of the detenu's representation by the Central Government.- Examination of the delay in transmitting the representation by the Jail Superintendent.- Interpretation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution regarding the right to representation and its expeditious consideration.Analysis:The Supreme Court heard an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court, which upheld the order of detention passed against the appellant under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detaining authority concluded that the detenu was involved in unauthorized financial transactions affecting the country's foreign exchange resources. The appellant contended that there was undue delay in the Central Government's disposal of his representation, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The High Court accepted the explanation provided by the Ministry of Finance regarding the delay, but the appellant argued that an unexplained 11-day delay between submission and receipt of the representation rendered the detention order invalid.The Court emphasized the importance of timely consideration of representations under Article 22(5) and cited previous judgments highlighting the constitutional right to prompt review. It clarified that there is no fixed timeline for disposal but emphasized that delays due to negligence or inaction are unacceptable. The Court referenced cases where delays in transmitting representations were deemed impermissible, emphasizing the obligation of authorities to handle representations promptly to uphold constitutional rights.In this case, the Court found that the Jail Superintendent's delay in transmitting the representation caused an unjustifiable delay in the Government's consideration. Despite the appellant handing over the representation promptly, the Superintendent's inaction led to an 11-day delay in reaching the Government. The Court held that this avoidable delay violated the detenu's rights, rendering the continued detention illegal. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the detention order, and directed the detenu's immediate release.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
