{"id":381,"date":"2023-04-26T12:09:26","date_gmt":"2023-04-26T06:39:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=381"},"modified":"2023-05-15T15:37:11","modified_gmt":"2023-05-15T10:07:11","slug":"sc-sets-aside-preventive-detention-order-holding-that-every-lapse-in-procedure-must-give-rise-to-a-benefit-to-the-case-of-the-detenue","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/sc-sets-aside-preventive-detention-order-holding-that-every-lapse-in-procedure-must-give-rise-to-a-benefit-to-the-case-of-the-detenue\/","title":{"rendered":"SC sets aside preventive detention order holding that \u2018every lapse in procedure must give rise to a benefit to the case of the detenue\u2018"},"content":{"rendered":"

PRAMOD SINGLA<\/strong> [APPELLANT(S)] Vs<\/strong>. UNION OF INDIA & ORS<\/strong>. [RESPONDENT(S)]<\/p>\n

[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10798 Of 2022]<\/strong>
\n(2JB, KRISHNA MURARI and V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN JJ., delivered by KRISHNA MURARI, J.)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Facts:<\/strong> Appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and final order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1205 of 2022 whereby the appellant\u2019s plea to quash the preventive detention order against him on grounds of delay in considering his representation was denied.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/strong> 1-Whether there exists a conflict between the Pankaj Kumar case and the Abdullah Kunhi Case?
\n2-Whether the impugned detention order be quashed on grounds of the 60-day delay in consideration of the representation made by the appellant?
\n3-Whether the illegible documents written in Chinese submitted to the appellant herein are grounds enough for quashing the impugned detention order?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of appellants:<\/strong> He submitted that as per Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, a representation made by the detenue in cases of preventive detention must be considered at the earliest, and an inordinate delay is grounds enough for the detention order to be set aside. He further submitted that since there are conflicting judgments (referring to the cases of K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union Of India & Ors. and Pankaj Kumar Chakraborty And Ors. v. State of West Bengal, on whether central Government must wait for the decision of the Advisory Board, the issue must be decided by a larger bench. He also submitted that documents supplied to the appellant herein as grounds for his preventive detention were illegible and in Chinese language, and hence on this ground also the impugned detention order as against the appellant must be quashed.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of respondents:<\/strong> Learned ASG, Mr. K.M Natraj, He submitted that there is no conflict between the Pankaj case and the Abdulla Kunhi case as contended by the appellant, as the former is in context of the Preventive Detention Act, whereas, the latter is in context of the COFEPOSA Act, which held that due to the detaining authority and the central Government being independent of each other under COFEPOSA Act, the mandate to wait for the decision of the Advisory Board exists on the central Government, and hence the delay of 60 days is not grounds enough for the detention order to be quashed.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/strong> The court, while allowing the present appeal, held that the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside. It held that \u201cEvery procedural rigidity, must be followed in entirety by the Government in cases of preventive detention, and every lapse in procedure must give rise to a benefit to the case of the detenue. The Courts, in circumstances of preventive detention, are conferred with the duty that has been given the utmost importance by the Constitution, which is the protection of individual and civil liberties. We find it important to note that preventive detention laws in India are a colonial legacy, and have a great potential to be abused and misused. Laws that have the ability to confer arbitrary powers to the state, must in all circumstances, be very critically examined, and must be used only in the rarest of rare cases.\u201d
\nAs regards the first issue, it is held in favour of the Respondents, that since no conflict exists, the need to refer the point of law to a Larger Bench also ceases. As regard the second issue, it is held in favour of respondents that the detaining authority, and the Government, have worked precisely within the procedure established by law, and hence the impugned detention order is not liable to be struck down on this ground. As regards the third issue, it is decided in favour of the appellant.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

PRAMOD SINGLA [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [RESPONDENT(S)] [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10798 Of 2022] (2JB, KRISHNA MURARI and V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN JJ., delivered by KRISHNA MURARI, J.) Facts: Appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and final order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the High […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":437,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-381","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=381"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":403,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381\/revisions\/403"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/437"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=381"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=381"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=381"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}