Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2016 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1475 - HC - Companies LawValidity of continued detention - whether the continued detention of the detenus is vitiated on the ground that the grounds of detention were not communicated as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, since the detenus were denied the opportunity to view the CCTV footages within the time provided under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act? - HELD THAT:- On a plain reading of clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, the requirement is to communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been made. The expression “communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made” was interpreted in various judicial pronouncements and it is now well settled that the constitutional requirement under Article 22(5) would not be fulfilled by just serving the grounds of detention on the detenu. It is also mandatory that the documents relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention also must be supplied to the detenu. The Constitution Bench in THE STATE OF BOMBAY VERSUS. ATMA RAM SRIDHAR VAIDYA [1951 (1) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT] also held that it is obvious that the grounds for making the order are the grounds on which the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to make the order. What must be supplied are “the grounds on which the order has been made” and nothing less. It is, therefore, clear that if the representation has to be intelligible to meet the charges contained in the grounds, the information conveyed to the detained person must be sufficient to attain that object. Without getting information sufficient to make a representation against the order of detention, it is not possible for the detenu to make an effective representation. In HARIKISAN VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [1962 (1) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT], a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that it is not sufficient that the detenu has been physically delivered the means of knowledge with which to make his representation. In order that the detenu should be in a position effectively to make his representation against the order of detention, he should have knowledge of the grounds of detention which are in the nature of the charge against him setting out the kinds of prejudicial acts which the authorities attribute to him. The Writ Petitions are allowed and the detenus are set at liberty forthwith, if their detention is not required in respect of any other case.
|