PIARA SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 456 · Decided: 13-10-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

PIARA SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
OCTOBER 13, 1987 
B 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ! AND M.H. KANIA, J.] 
National Security Act, 1980: Section 3-Detenu's representation y 
to Government-Duty of State to determine with utmost expedition-
Failure to do so--Vitiates detention order-Infringement of fundamen-
).
ta/ right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution-Advocate-Whether 
c 
prevented from making representation on behalf of detenu-Writ 
f 
Petition-Dismissal by High Court-Whether ground for non-consi- 1 
deration by Government of detenu's representation. 
The petitioner was detained by the Punjab Government pursuant 
to an order of detention passed under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 3 
D of the National Security Act, 1980. When in jail, he was served with an 
order passed under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign 
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Act (COFEPOSA) directing his 
detention. 
The petitioner made a representation against his order of deten-
). 
E 
tion nnder COFEPOSA. He"was produced before the Advisory Board. 
Pursuant to Board's recommendation, his detention was revoked. He 
was also produced before the same Board, being also the Advisory 
Board under the National Security Act. He did not make any represen-
talion against his detention under the National Security Act, believing 
that his detention was only under COFEPOSA. The Board confirmed 
f 
the detention order. On January 24, 1986 an order passed under sub-
I 
section (1) of section 12 read with section 14-A(1)(2)(c) and (d) of the f--
National Security Act, 1980, as amended, confirmed the aforesaid 
order of detention and the petitioner was directed to be continued to be 
detained for a period of 2 years from the date of his detention. 
G 
The petitioner made a representation dated December 18, 1986, 
through his Advocate, addressed to the President of India for the revo-
cation of his detention. On December 24, 1986, the petitioner made a 
~ 
representation to the Government of Punjab against his detention, con-
tending that his detention was invalid as vital facts and materials that 
should have influenced the minds of the declaring authority and the 
H 
detaining authority had not been placed before them. Both these 
456 
' t--
-'. 
-
--\_ 
--+ 
PIARA SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
457 
representations were rejected on 26.2.1987. 
A 
The petitioner challenged the order of detention on various 
grounds including the one that there was inordinate delay in dealing 
with bis representation to the Punjab Government. It was contended 
that there was no justification for the undue delay in disposing of bis 
representation, which had resulted in violation of bis rights under Arti· B 
cle 22(5) of the Constitution and that his continued detention was not 
valid in law. 
It was contended on behalf of the respondent-State that the re-
presentation was received on January 14, 1987, and it was invalid as the 
Advocate who sent it bad no authority to make it and that the delay in c 
dealing with it was on account of the fact that it was made by a person 
claiming to be an Advocate of the petitioner whose authority was not 
checked, and that the delay bad caused no prejudice to the petitioner 
because he preferred a writ petition against his detention to the High 
Court which was dismissed. 
D 
This Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of deten-
lion, and directed release of the petitioner. 
Giving reasons for its decision, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 Where the liberty of a person is involved, it is the 
E 
duty of the State to determine his representation with utmost expedition 
. and deal with it continuously until a final decision is taken and com-
municated to detenu. Failure to do so vitiates the order of detention, 
because it infringes the fundamental right given to every citizen under 
Article 22(5) oftbe Constitution oflndia. [461F·G, 460H] 
F 
In the instant case the delay in dealing with repre!lentation of the 
petitioner, which was admittedly received by the Government on 
January 14, 1987 and rejected as late as on February 26, 1987, must be 
considered as inordinate delay in dealing with the representation. 
No explanation is given in the counter affidavit as to why the represen· 
G 
talion could not have been dealt with and disposed of earlier. Hence, the 
order of detention is vitiated by reason of delay in dealing with his 
representation. [462C·EI 
Saleh Mohammad v. Union of India, [1980] 4 SCC 428 and 
Harish Pahwa v. State

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.