LexJAYANARAYAN SUKUL versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
{
II
c
D
r
E
F:
G
JI
...._
)
225
JAYANARAYAN SUKUL-·-··· -·--~.
v-.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
October 15 &·November 5, 1969
[l\f. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J. M. SHELA;: C. A. VAIDIALINGAM,
A. N. ·GROVER AND A. N; RAY, JJ.] .
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 22(5)' Ond Preventive Detenti'a~ Act.
1950, s. 7-Right of detenu t10}1ave his representation considered by Stat~
Government-Government .must consider representation
before nt.aking
reference to"Advisory Board and independently of its-report-Inordinate
delay in considering representation vio/.1tes consHtutional Culirantee.
O~ June 5, 196J the District Magi!trate 24-Parganas; West Bengal .
made an order under s. 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act. 1950 for
the detention of -the petitioner. On June 7,-- .1969 the. petitioner was.
arrested and served with the grounds of detention. On .June 9, 1969 in-
- formation was givcn_to the State GOvernment.
On June_ 14, 1969 the
GoVernor apptoved the order of detention and sent -the rf:pOrt -under s.
3 ( 4) of the Act along with the grounds of detention. to the
Central
Government.-On June 23, .1969 the petitioner-made a representation te>
·the State Government.
On July l, 1969 the State Government placed
the case of the petitioner together with the said representation before the
Advisory Board under s. 9 of the Act. The Board gave its opinion on
·August -i 3,'_ 1969 that· there. was sufficient cause for the detention of the
petitioner. · On· August 19, 196') the State Government. -aUegedly reiected
the petitioner's representation.
On August 26, 1969 the Governor con_
firmed the order of detention. · The petitioner filed a petition under Art.
; 32 of the Constitution challenging his detention on the ~round that the
State Government did not consider his representation of June 23, 1969'
v.·ith reasonable and proper expedition.
On behalf of the ·State Govern-
ment it was contend~d that the Government had discharged hs duty inas-
much .as it_ rejected the reoresentation after considering the report of the
Advisory Hoard and making its own enquiries through the Superintendent
Raihi.'av Police- '\/hose reoort ·wa' a little_ delayed.
In resoect of the said'
enquiry h&.\Jing hecn made an affidavit·was fil~d by_ the officer ~ho caused
the enquiry to be· made~
HELD: (i) Broadly stated. four principles, ar~ to be followed in re-
ga'rd to the representation of detenus ~.
-
First, the appropriate .. authority, is bound to give an opportuility to thc-
Uetenu to make a representation and· to consider the represe~ta_tion as
early as possible. (232 BJ
Secondly, the consideration 0-f the representation of the 'c.etenu b}r th~
appronriate authOritv is entirelv independent of any action by_ the Advi-
sory Board includinz the cop,Jde_ration of the representation of the dctenu
by the Advisory Board. (232 CJ '
Thirdly. th~re should not be an-v delay in the matter of con"ider.ltiCJn.
Though nO hard and f~st _rule can bC laid down as to. the measure of time
taken h-V the app'ronriate aut'1ority for consideration. it has to be -remerri-
bcred that the Government has to be viei1ant in the g-overnance Of thc-
citizens; The fundimenta1 ri!-'it of the detenu to have. his ·representatiotl
:226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 s.c.R.
.considered by the appropriate Government would be rendered meaningless
A
jf the Government does nqt deal with the matter expeditiously but at its
O\\'n sweet will and convenience. [232 C-D]
Fourthly the approp'riale Government is to exercise its opinion an<l
_judgment on the representation before sending the case along with the
tletenu's representation to the Advisory Board. If t~e appropriate Govern-
ment will release the detenu the Government will not send the matter 10
the Advisory BoQ!'d.
If however the Government will not release the
B
<lctenu the Gqvemment will send the case along with the detenu's repre-
sentation to the Advisory Board.
If thereafter the Advisory Board will
express an opinion in favour of release of the detenu the Government
will release the detenu.
If the Advisory Boa!rd will express any opinion
against the release of the detenu the Government may still exercise the
power to release the detcnu. [232 D-F]
Sk. Abdul Karim & Ors. v. State of West Bengal.
[1969] 3 S.C.R..
C
479; Pankaj Kumar Chakrabarty & Or.<. v. State of West Bengal, [1970]
I S.C.R. 543 and Khairul Haque v. State of We>t Bengal, W.P.
No.
246 / 69 dated 10-9-69, Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.