bench of Justices R Suresh Kumar and KK Ramakrishnan passed the order while suspending the detention order passed by Thoothukudi collector in a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother of a 19-year-old detainee, Ladan alias Binladan
A bench of Justices R Suresh Kumar and KK Ramakrishnan passed the order while suspending the detention order passed by Thoothukudi collector in a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother of a 19-year-old detainee, Ladan alias Binladan.
The court said the counter affidavits must contain 14 details such as date of receipt of records relating to detention order issued by the detaining authority, date of approval, date of transmission of records to the advisory board, date of receipt of opinion and report from the board, date of confirmation of the detention order (after getting the opinion from the board), date of representation of the detenu, date of receipt of representation of the detenu, date of file submission, date on which undersecretary dealt with the file, deputy secretary dealt with on, minister dealt with on, rejection letter prepared on, and date on which the rejection letter was sent to the detenu.
The judges also said the present procedure of giving an explanation for the delay in considering the representation by the counsel orally must be avoided by filing the written explanation of the officer concerned of the home department and Volume I and II documents must also be submitted with the counter affidavit.
ADVERTISEMENT
The court said it is passing the order as three common issues were being raised in all habeas corpus petitions. A) Whether the non-intimation of arrest in the case would be a fatal ground to the subsequent detention order passed under Act 14 of 1982 and B) Whether non-supply of entire materials (or documents) pertaining to a similar case that has been referred by the detaining authority in the detention order would also be fatal to the detention order. The court has referred the issues to a full bench or larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement.
With respect to the third issue — whether all documents mentioned in the ground of detention irrespective of the fact whether it is relied upon document or not are to be supplied with translated versions in the vernacular to the detenu — the court said the document mainly relied upon to the subjective satisfaction could be supplied if necessary but not other documents.
The detaining authority must separate the documents into two — relied upon documents (Volume I) and referred documents (Volume II). If some of the documents are not provided from Volume II, which cause prejudice to the right of the detenu to make an effective representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution, and if the detenu approaches the court, the state must file a counter affidavit showing why such documents were denied, the ruling said.
