SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(SC) 51

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P.S. KAILASAM AND A.D. KOSHAL, JJ.
Narinder Singh Suri, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. Criminal No. 1514 of 1979
Decided on 1-2-1980.

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Article 22 (5) - Demanded Copies Of Various Documents - Delay Is Excusable - Continued Detention Of Petitioner - Clearly Violative Detention Passed - Delay was due to fact that a lot of Photostat copies of documents demanded by petitioner had to be prepared which took some time and that even petitioner did not seriously protest against this delay - Assuming that this delay is excusable there is another ground to which respondent has no answer - Representation by petitioner was made to detaining authority and was received by latter - According to respondent representation was rejected though this fact was communicated to detenu a few days later - Even so delay remains wholly unexplained – Held, Continued detention of petitioner is clearly violative of Art. 22 (5) of Constitution of India and therefore petitioner is entitled to be released forthwith - Accordingly we allow this petition and direct detenu to be released forthwith unless he is in custody in some other case - Petition Allowed.

JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J. :— This Writ Petition has been filed by Narinder Singh Suri against an order of his detention passed by the Deputy Secretary (Home), Delhi Administration, dated 7th September, 1979. It is not necessary to go into any 946 further detail because the petition must succeed on a short point. Mr. Sen appearing for the petitioner submitted that although the petitioner demanded copies of various documents on 18th September, 1979 he was not provided with them until 4th October, 1979. Mr. Aggarwal appearing for the Union submitted that the delay was due to the fact that a lot of Photostat copies of the documents demanded by the petitioner had to be prepared which took some time and that even the petitioner did not seriously protest against this delay. Assuming that this delay is excusable, there is another ground to which the respondent has no answer. The representation by the petitioner was made to the detaining authority on 5th October, 1979 and was received by the latter on 10th October, 1979. According to the respondent the representation was rejected on 30th October, 1979 though this fact was communicated to the detenu a few days later. Even so, the delay from 10th October, 1979 to 29th October, 1979 remains wholly unexplained. In this view of the matter, the continued detention of the petitioner is clearly violative of Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released forthwith. Accordingly, we allow this petition and direct the detenu to be released forthwith unless he is in custody in some other case.

Petition allowed.

For Citation: AIR 1980 SC 945

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top