Case Note & Summary
The case involved a habeas corpus petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by a detenu challenging his preventive detention order passed under Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (President’s Act No. 19 of 1970). The District Magistrate, Burdwan, passed the detention order on February 10, 1971, with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The State Government approved the order on February 18, 1971. The detenu absconded and was arrested on September 24, 1971, after which he was served with the grounds of detention. The State Government placed the case before the Advisory Board on October 23, 1971. The detenu submitted a representation against his detention, which the State Government received on October 28, 1971. The representation was considered and rejected by the State Government on November 24, 1971, after a delay of 27 days. The representation was then sent to the Advisory Board, which, after hearing the detenu, opined on November 26, 1971 that there was sufficient cause for detention. The State Government confirmed the detention order on December 1, 1971. The detenu challenged the detention before the Supreme Court, arguing that the delay in considering his representation was unexplained and violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The State, despite being given an opportunity to file an additional affidavit to explain the delay, declined to do so. The Court noted that Article 22(5) requires the authority to afford the earliest opportunity to make a representation and that such representation must be dealt with promptly. Unexplained delay in disposing of the representation reduces the safeguard to an empty formality. Reliance was placed on several precedents, including Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal, where it was held that the Government must consider the representation as expeditiously as possible, and unexplained delays of 17 to 29 days in various cases had vitiated detentions. Consequently, the Court held that the detention was invalid due to infraction of Article 22(5) and ordered the detenu to be set at liberty.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention - Unexplained delay in considering detenu's representation invalidates detention - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 22(5); West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970, Section 3 - The State Government received the detenu's representation against detention on October 28, 1971, but considered and rejected it on November 24, 1971, after an unexplained delay of 27 days. The Court held that the requirement of affording the earliest opportunity to make a representation under Article 22(5) necessarily implies that the representation must be dealt with promptly, and any unexplained delay reduces the safeguard to a farce and empty formality, thereby infringing Article 22(5). Held that the detention was invalid and the petitioner was ordered to be set at liberty (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an unexplained delay of 27 days by the State Government in considering and rejecting the detenu's representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution read with Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970, invalidated the detention order.
Final Decision
Petition allowed; rule made absolute; petitioner ordered to be set at liberty. The Court held that unexplained delay of 27 days in considering representation invalidated detention under Article 22(5).
Law Points
- Article 22(5) of the Constitution requires earliest opportunity to make representation
- representation must be dealt with promptly
- unexplained delay in disposing of representation violates Article 22(5)
- preventive detention invalidated by infraction of Article 22(5)
- State must strictly comply with procedural safeguards in detention matters
