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

1987 Supreme(SC) 106

M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.
Petn. for Spl. Leave to Appeal (Crl. ) No. 2357 of 1985, D/- 29-1-1987.
State of U.P. , Petitioner
Versus
Hari Singh Thakur, Respondent.

Advocates:
DALVIR BHANDARI, YOGESHAR PRASAD

Headnote:

Quashing Of Detention Order - Manner in which detention order has been quashed, having regard to fact that about 1 year and nine months have elapsed since quashing of detention order and do not think it would be proper for us to entertain this petition for special leave – Held, High Court might have apprised itself of aforesaid judgment and decided matter after taking into account law laid down therein – Court hope that High Court will realise that there is no particular virtue in quashing an order for in a given case a detention order may be fully justified and absolutely necessary for protection of society - Approach has to be an objective approach taking into account all relevant circumstances and considerations in order to strike a balance between need to protect community on one hand and need to preserve liberty of a citizen – Court hope this aspect will be borne in mind in future – Petition Dismissed.

ORDER :- While we are not happy with the manner in which the detention order has been quashed, having regard to the fact that about 1 year and nine months have elapsed since the quashing of the detention order (the order was quashed in May, 1985 and we are in January, 1987), we do not think it would be proper for us to entertain this petition for special leave. Learned counsel for the petitioner has called our attention to the following passage in State of Rajasthan v. Shamsher Singh, AIR 1985 SC 1082 :-

"We agree with the principle indicated above and in our opinion, in the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that there has been any negligence or remissness on the part of the State Government in dealing with the representation of the detenu or in the matter of causing the same to be placed before the Advisory Board. We are impressed by the fact that no prejudice has been caused to the detenu on account of the delay of a day beyond the statutory period in placing the representation before the Advisory Board inasmuch as the Advisory Board had caused the matter to be heard on the 10th September, 1984 and before the appointed date the representation was before the Board. The first ground on which the High Court came to hold that the detention was invalid has, therefore, to be negatived."

2. The High Court might have apprised itself of the aforesaid judgment and decided the matter after taking into account the law laid down therein. We hope that the High Court will realise that there is no particular virtue in quashing an order for in a given case a detention order may be fully justified and absolutely necessary for the protection of the society. The approach has to be an objective approach taking into account all the relevant circumstances and considerations in order to strike a balance between the need to protect the community on the one hand and the need to preserve the liberty of a citizen. We hope this aspect will be borne in mind in future. Subject to these observations the special leave petition fails and is dismissed.

Special leave petition dismissed.

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