Preventive Detention

Representation to appropriate authority/Govt.

— Delay in disposal of representation — Interference by court — Scope — Duty of court — Held, if there is no negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red tapism on the facts of the case, the Court would not interfere — But, detention becomes vulnerable when there is remissness, indifference or avoidable delay on the part of the authority — Duty of Court is to see that efficacy of safeguards provided in the law of preventive detention is not lost in mechanical, routine, dull casualness and chill indifference, on the part of the authorities entrusted with their application — There can be no hard-and-fast rule as to the measure of reasonable time for disposal of representation — Each case has to be considered on its facts, (2006) 5 SCC 676-A

Preventive Detention

Representation to appropriate authority/ Govt.

— Delay in disposal of representation — Representation disposed of by rejection thereof after about 12 days from the date of its receipt by the authorities concerned — Held on facts, was dealt with utmost expedition, (2006) 5 SCC 676-B

Preventive Detention

Communication of grounds of detention

— Documents and materials which need not be supplied — Non-supply of document (confession of co-accused) which was merely referred to in grounds of detention without being relied upon for purpose of detention, held, not fatal, (2006) 5 SCC 676-C

Preventive Detention

Representation to appropriate authority/Govt.

— Delay in disposal of representation — Contention as to explanation by State — When could not be raised — Writ petition filed even before the order of rejection served on detenu — That being so, held, detenu could not make grievance that the State had not explained the position as to how his representation was dealt with, (2006) 5 SCC 676-D

Preventive Detention

Detention order

— Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority — Conclusion that there was likelihood of detenu being released on bail, arrived at by detaining authority, though no bail application filed by detenu — Propriety of — Held, was proper as for the said conclusion detaining authority was only required to be aware that the detenu was in custody and was likely to be released on bail — Said conclusion was subjective satisfaction of detaining authority based on materials before the detaining authority — Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with — On facts, detaining authority had indicated reasons for his said conclusion, (2006) 5 SCC 676-E