Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (11) TMI 75

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a friend was bad and continued detention of the appellant became vitiated. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the order of detention is quashed. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. - 232 of 1987 - - - Dated:- 4-11-1987 - Ranganath Misra and S. Ranganathan, JJ. [Judgment per : Ranganath Misra, J.]. - This appeal is by special leave. Appellant challenged his order of detention under Section 3(l)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA for short) by filing a writ petition before the High Court and that application has been dismissed. As many as six contentions had been advanced before the High Court. Though raised in the writ petition, the point .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot a friend of the detenu and because of his professional experience he liked to help the detenu. In the same paragraph the Advisory Board has given its findings and reasons for rejecting the request of the detenu on the ground that Mr. Sundararajan not being a friend of the detenu, the Advisory Board did not consider it proper to allow him to represent the case of the detenu." It is thus clear from the allegations in the special leave petition and the counter affidavit that the appellant had requested the Board to allow him the assistance of a friend at the hearing and for the reasons and in the manner indicated in the counter affidavit the request was turned down. 3. In paragraph 3 of the special leave petition, the appellant had alle .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Board. 5. In the premises indicated above, two aspects have to be examined -(1) whether the appellant was entitled to the assistance of Sundararajan as a friend; and (2) whether when the detaining authority was assisted by a Deputy Collector and a Superintendent of Central Excise, was the request of the appellant to be assisted by a retired Assistant Collector of Central Excise unjust and should the same had been refused? A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Nand Lal Bajaj v. State of Punjab - (1982) 1 S.C.R 718 was considering the question of legal assistance for the detenu before the Advisory Board. It referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Kavita v. State of Maharashtra - (1982) 1 S.C.R 138 where Chinnappa Reddy, J. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t it did not preclude the Board to allow such assistance to detenu, when it allowed the State to be represented by an array of lawyers." A Constitution Bench of this Court in A.K. Roy etc. v. Union of India and Another - (1982) 2 S.C.R. 272, dealt with this aspect. Chandrachud, CJ, speaking for the Court stated. :- "We must therefore, held, regretfully though, that the detenu has no right to appear through a legal practitioner in the proceedings before the Advisory Board. It is, however, necessary to add an important caveat. The reason behind the provisions contained in Article 22(4)(b) of the Constitution clearly is that a legal practitioner should not be permitted to appear before the Advisory Board for any party. The Constitution do .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of a legal adviser. We do hope that Advisory Boards will take care to ensure that the provisions of Article 14 are not violated in any manner in the proceedings before them..........". Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that what has been stated above is the law applicable to the facts of this case. We have already found that the detaining authority had the assistance of the Deputy Collector of Central Excise and a Superintendent of Central Excise. In the words of Chandrachud, CJ, "they play the role of legal advisers". The Board had no justification to refuse assistance of Sundararajan to the appellant in such circumstances. 6. The rule in A.K. Roy's case (supra) made it clear that the detenu was entitled to the assis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates