State Of Rajasthan vs Shamsher Singh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1985 Supreme(SC) 170

RANGANATH MISRA, S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
State Of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Shamsher Singh – Respondent

Advocates:
Badri Das Sharma, DALVIR BHANDARI, M.R.SHARMA, N.L.Jain, R.N.Poddar, RAM JETHMALANI, RANI JETHMALANI

Judgement Key Points

What is the proper interpretation and mandatory nature of Section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980 regarding placing grounds and the detenu's representation before the Advisory Board? What are the requirements and appropriateness of the Advisory Board's consideration of documentary evidence and the availability of records to the State Government under Section 11 and 12 of the Act? What are the constitutional requirements for ensuring a detenu receives an effective opportunity to make representation, including disclosure of materials relied upon while withholding confidential sources?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the proper interpretation and mandatory nature of Section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980 regarding placing grounds and the detenu's representation before the Advisory Board?

What are the requirements and appropriateness of the Advisory Board's consideration of documentary evidence and the availability of records to the State Government under Section 11 and 12 of the Act?

What are the constitutional requirements for ensuring a detenu receives an effective opportunity to make representation, including disclosure of materials relied upon while withholding confidential sources?

Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J. :- The respondent, an advocate, was ordered to be detained by the Government of Rajasthan under S. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on August 14, 1984, and he was actually taken into custody and detained on the following day. The grounds of detention were supplied to him when he was detained. Respondent challenged his detention before the Rajasthan High Court by filing two applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution on several grounds. Both the writ applications were clubbed and heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. The High Court found that the representation of the detenu-respondent had not been placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks as required by S. 10 of the Act and such violation vitiated the continued detention of the respondent. It also found that the Advisory Board had not considered the documentary evidence produced by the detenu and the opinion formed by the Board that the respondent should be detained was, therefore, not an appropriate one. The court took the view that the materials in the record which had been considered by the Advisory Board in formulating its reco

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1985 Supreme(SC) 170

RANGANATH MISRA, S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALIState Of Rajasthan – AppellantVersusShamsher Singh – Respondent

What is the proper interpretation and mandatory nature of Section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980 regarding placing grounds and the detenu's representation before the Advisory Board?

What are the requirements and appropriateness of the Advisory Board's consideration of documentary evidence and the availability of records to the State Government under Section 11 and 12 of the Act?

What are the constitutional requirements for ensuring a detenu receives an effective opportunity to make representation, including disclosure of materials relied upon while withholding confidential sources?

Cases Referred (5)

RANGANATH MISRA, S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
State Of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Shamsher Singh – Respondent