Preventive Detention

Detention order

— Delay in passing detention order — Validity of the order — Not to be tested on the same standard as applied to the case of consideration of representation of detenu — However, in case of inordinate delay in passing the detention order live link between the prejudicial activity of detenu and purpose for which the order is passed is snapped and the order becomes a stale one — Having regard to the detailed explanation given by detaining authority, held, voluminous material against detenu were collected and continuously processed and considered at different stages in the Home Department of the State Govt. which consumed time whereafter only detention order could be issued and detaining authority was conscious of the urgency of the matter — In the circumstance delay of ten months in issuing the order would not render the order invalid, (2006) 7 SCC 560-A

Preventive Detention

Detention order

— Non-application of mind — Delay in disposal or representation — Detaining authority getting only 12 working days after taking charge within which detention order was passed — Documents ran into 2000 pages — Held, examination of proposal for detention is a continuing process involving scrutiny at various levels in the Home Deptt. — Though proposal made much earlier, further documents generated and furnished to detaining authority which it considered — Merely because detaining authority also considered the draft grounds of detention prepared by its predecessor, that would not vitiate the detention order if it had not passed it mechanically but passed it after applying mind to relevant materials and on arriving at independent subjective satisfaction — Detention order in this case was not vitiated by non-application of mind, (2006) 7 SCC 560-B

Preventive Detention

Communication of grounds of detention

— Language of communication — Documents served upon detenu in English language which he did not understand, alleged — Held, material on record establishing that he was conversant with English language and had been corresponding with the authorities concerned in that language — Moreover, the manner in which he was conducting his export business would show that having regard to the large number of documents to be filed and required to be filled, he could not have conducted his business on a large scale without being conversant with English language — Thus detenu knew English language and therefore, service of the documents on him in that language did not violate Art. 22(5) — However, by way of abundant caution translated copies of documents were provided to him within 10 days of his request, (2006) 7 SCC 560-C

Preventive Detention

Representation to appropriate authority/Govt.

— Delay in disposal of representation — Delay in disposal of/Alleged in habeas corpus petition filed before Supreme Court — Writ petition was filed soon after order of detention was served on detenu — Alleged delay was not subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition — Held, this aspect would not be examined by Supreme Court — Detenu may challenge the detention on that ground, if so advised, (2006) 7 SCC 560-D