Back
SUJOY PAUL, ANIL VERMA
MONICA TRIPATHI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent
ORDER : – With the consent of the parties, heard finally.
Regard being had to the similitude of the question involved, on the joint request of the parties, matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.
2. These petitions are directed against the order of learned District Magistrate, Indore whereby he has detained the petitioners by exercising power under section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The singular ground to assail the impugned order is that in the detention order, the learned District Magistrate has not mentioned that petitioners have a valuable right to prefer a representation against the detention order before the same authority namely District Magistrate. The matter is covered by Full Bench decision in W. P. No. 22290/2019, Kamal Khare vs. State of M. P., .
3. Shri Vivek Dalal, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State fairly admitted that the detention order does not contain any such stipulation that petitioners can prefer representation against the detention order before the same authority. He further agreed that on this ground, Full Bench in Kamal Khare (supra) has held that the detention order stands vitiated because of in
The central legal point established in the judgment is the detenu's right to make a representation to the detaining authority, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, and the conse....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of mention in a detention order regarding the right of the detainee to prefer a representation against the detention order before ....
The right of a person subjected to preventive detention to make a representation against the detention order to the authority passing the order, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of In....
Failure to communicate the time limit for making a representation to the detaining authority in the grounds of detention violates Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
(1) Order of preventive detention under NSA does not overlap with penal provisions under FSSA as it is not in lieu of that but is rather in addition to that.(2) Life of order passed by District Magis....
The preventive detention order was upheld, affirming that procedural delays in representation handling did not violate constitutional mandates under Article 22(5).
Failure to inform the detenu of his right to make a representation to the detaining authority renders the detention illegal.
Failure to inform a detenue of his right to representation and unexplained delays in processing representations under Article 22(5) of the Constitution vitiate detention orders.
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
