Back
RAMESH SINHA, SAROJ YADAV
Sonu @ Mohd. Ishtiyaq Through Mother Shameem Bano – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Saroj Yadav, J.—The instant Habeas Corpus petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the detenue/petitioner Sonu @ Mohd. Ishtiyaq through his next friend/mother Shameem Bano to quash the impugned detention order passed by the respondent No.3 i.e. District Magistrate, Barabanki vide No.01/J.A./Ra.Su.Ka./2021 dated 11.04.2021, whereby the detention order has been passed exercising the power under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short ‘NS Act’) and directing to retain the petitioner/detenue under Section 3(2) of the NS Act as well as the impugned order dated 22.04.2021 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the detention order has been approved by the State Government.
2. The pre-judicial activities of the petitioner/detenue necessitating the District Magistrate, Barabanki to pass the impugned detention order against him are detailed in grounds of detention. The facts relating to detention of the petitioner/detenue has been described in the ‘grounds of detention’ followed by detention order dated 11.04.2021 in short are as under:-
One Mr. Mahendra Singh, Sub Inspector, Police Station Ram Sanehi Ghat, District Barabanki has
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
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....
The detaining authority must be aware of all material circumstances and provide complete information, and there is a constitutional obligation to afford timely representation.
Unexplained delays in addressing a detainee's representation for release render ongoing detention unconstitutional, affirming the necessity for prompt action by authorities.
The court established that delays in processing representations against detention orders, especially when unexplained, violate constitutional rights and can lead to the quashing of such orders.
Point of Law : It is, thus, settled that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority has to be based on objective material and any non-existent or misconceived or irrelevant consideration,....
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
