Back
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI
Mohd. Sheebu Alias Sheebu Chaudhary Through Brother Mubarak Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Thru. Secy. Mini. of Home Affairs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
D.K. Upadhyaya, J.
1. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted by the detenue-Mohd. Sheebu @ Sheebu Chaudhary through his brother and next friend Mubarak Ahmad praying for issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus setting the detenue free from detention as directed by the District Magistrate, Sitapur by means of an order dated 08.03.2022 after quashing the same.
2. Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State-respondents and Ms. Pooja Singh, learned counsel representing the Union of India and perused the records available before us on this writ petition.
3. As observed above, the order impugned herein is dated 08.03.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Sitapur (hereinafter referred to 'the detention order') whereby the detenue has been ordered to be detained in preventive detention at District Jail, Sitapur in terms of the provisions contained in section 3(2) and 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'NSA').
4. Though various grounds impeaching the impugned detention order have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitio
Quash of detention order - Delay in forwarding the petitioner’s representation on the part of the District Magistrate, and also delay in disposal of the petitioner’s representation
Detention order quashed - State failed to discharge its obligation in deciding representation expeditiously and moreover Central Government has not decided representation till date which is fatal and....
Though no time limit is prescribed for disposal of representation, constitutional imperative is that it must be disposed of as soon as possible.
Point of Law : Preventive detention - Grounds of detention - It is obligatory on part of Government to show by filing a counter affidavit that it had acted promptly in dealing with representation - P....
The preventive detention order was upheld, affirming that procedural delays in representation handling did not violate constitutional mandates under Article 22(5).
Delay in considering the representation of a detenu, especially when the liberty of the detenu is at stake, renders the continued detention impermissible and invalid as being violative of Article 22(....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
