RAMA DHONDU BORADE versus V.K. SARAF, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 191 · Decided: 05-05-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMA DHONDU BORADE 
v. 
V.K. SARAF, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. 
MAY 5, 1989 
[B.C. RAY ANDS. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.] 
Article 22(j)-Detenu's representorion against detention-Neces-
sity for consideration and disposal of representation as expeditiously as 
possible. 
A 
B 
National Security Act, 1980 & National Security (Conditions of C 
detention) (Maharashtra) Order 1980-Section 3 Clause 4-Detention 
Order-Representation of Detenu-Necessity for disposal with the 
promptitude and diligence. 
With a view to preventing the petitioner-detenu from indulging in 
activities that were prejudicial to the maintenance of public Order in 
D 
Greater Bombay, the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, in 
exercise of the powers conferred on him by Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 
of the National Security Act, 1980 read with clause 4 of the National 
,J.-~ Security (Conditions of detention) (Maharashtra) Order 1980 passed on 
Order of detention, pursuant whereof the Petitioner-detenu was 
detained in Central Prison, Nasik. He was furnished with copies of 
E 
grounds of detention and other material on the basis of which the 
detaining authority based his subjective satisfaction. 
l 
In order to challenge the legality and validity of the detention 
Order, the detenu filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court 
which was dismissed. Against the Order of the High Court, the 
f 
detenu-petitioner has filed criminal appeal after obtaining special 
leave. He has also filed a separate Writ Petition in this Court challeng-
ing his detention. Both were heard together by this· Court. 
Counsel for the appellant raised several contentions assailing the 
legality of the detention order, one of which being that there was inor-
G 
y' dinate and unexplained delay caused by the Union of India in consider-
ing and disposing of his representation dated 26-9-88, as such his 
continued detention was unconstitutional and illegal being violative of 
Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 
Allowing the appeal as also the Writ Petition this Court 
191 
H 
A 
B 
c 
192 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 
HELD: The detenu has an independent constitutional right to 
make his representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of 
India. Correspondingly there is a Constitutional mandate commanding 
the concerned authority to whom the deteuu forwards his representa-
tion questioning the correctness of the detention Order clamped upon 
him and requesting for his release, to consider the said representation 
within reasonable dispatch and to dispose the same as expeditiously as 
possible. [198H; 199A-B] 
(Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal, [1970] I SCC 219; 
Abdul Karim & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, [1969] l SCC 433; Pankaj 
Kumar Chakravarty & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, [1969] 3 SCC 400. 
This constitutional requirement must be satisfied with respect but 
if this constitutional imperative is observed in breach, it would amount 
to negation of the constitutional obligation rendering the continued 
detention constitutionally impermissible and illegal; since such a breach 
would defeat the very concept of liberty-the highly cherished right 
D which is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. [1998-C] 
y 
The use of the word "as soon as may be" occurring in Article 
22(5) of the Constitution reflects that the representation should 
be expeditiously considered and disposed of with due promptitude and 
.~ 
diligence and with a sense of urgency and without avoidable delay. 
E 
What is reasonable dispatch depends upon the facts and circums-
tances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in that 
regard. [199D] 
Rashik Sk. v. State of West Bengal, [1973] 3 SCC 476. 
F 
Smt. Sha/ini Soni & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1980] 4 
sec 544. 
In the instant case, the gap between the receipt and disposal of the 
representation is 28 days but upon the date of service of the order of 
rejection on the detenu the delay amounts to 32 days. The only explana-
G 
lion offered by the 3rd respondent is that further information required 
from the State Government was received by the third respondent on 
'( 
17-10-88 after a delay of nearly 14 days and then the representation of 
the detenu was disposed of on 27-10-88 within which period there were 
certain holidays. There is an inordinate and unreasonable delay and the 
explanation given by the third respondent is not satisfactory and accept-
H able. Detenu directed to be set at liberty forthw

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