Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Siddharth Mridul, Golmei Gaiphulshillu
Thokchom Romeschandra Singh @ Ayangba @ Nanao – Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the petitioner's arrest and detention. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. overview of the detention grounds and legal context. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments against the validity of detention order. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. representation for revocation made but delayed response. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. contention of delay in addressing revocation requests. (Para 10 , 12) |
| 6. respondents' defenses regarding the detention. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. discussion about delay in processing representation affecting detention. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 8. consequences of unexplained delays in representation outcomes. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 9. conclusion: writ petition allowed, detention order quashed. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT :
Siddharth Mridul, CJ.
[1] Heard Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Gangarani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Th. Vashum, learned G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4.
[2] The present petition has been instituted on behalf of Shri Thokchom Romeschadra Singh @ Ayangba @ Nanao with the following prayer:
“To issue rule nisi directing the respondents to show cause as to
Unexplained delays in addressing a detainee's representation for release render ongoing detention unconstitutional, affirming the necessity for prompt action by authorities.
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
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....
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....
Failure to inform a detenue of their right to represent before the detaining authority and unexplained delays in processing such representations violate Article 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering p....
Though no time limit is prescribed for disposal of representation, constitutional imperative is that it must be disposed of as soon as possible.
Result : on account of unexplained delay of four days on the part of Union of India, the continuation of the preventive detention sands vitiated
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.
The detaining authority must be aware of all material circumstances and provide complete information, and there is a constitutional obligation to afford timely representation.
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
