Case Note & Summary
This case involved a writ petition for habeas corpus filed by the wife of the detenu, Sarfaraz Maqbool Qureishi, who was detained under the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The detention order was issued by the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, on May 28, 1980, and served on the detenu on May 29, 1980, while he was hospitalized due to a massive heart attack. The petitioner contended that the detenu was denied the right to be heard in person by the Advisory Board, as he was informed of the meeting only one or two hours prior, and that notice was given to his wife rather than directly to him. The court noted that the detenu was in a precarious condition and unable to communicate or attend the meeting. The court examined the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 11 of the Act, which required that a detenu be given a proper opportunity to be heard. The court found that the notice provided was insufficient and that the detenu's right to be heard was effectively negated. The argument from the respondents that the detenu should have requested an extension was dismissed as meritless, given his medical condition. Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition and directed the release of the detenu, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory rights in preventive detention cases.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention - Right to be Heard - Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 - The court held that the opportunity given to the detenu to be heard in person was inadequate and amounted to a violation of his statutory rights under the Act. The detenu was not given reasonable notice of the Advisory Board meeting, and thus, the right conferred under the Act was negated. Held that the detenu's release was warranted due to this infringement (Paras 693D-G).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the detenu was afforded a proper opportunity to be heard by the Advisory Board as mandated by law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and directed the release of the detenu, finding that the opportunity to be heard was a farce and violated his statutory rights under the Act.
Law Points
- Right to be heard
- preventive detention
- Advisory Board procedures
- statutory rights
- habeas corpus
