Mohammad Imran Sofi vs State Of Jk And Others on 10 October, 2018
7. Pertinent to quote the below mentioned observations of Hon'ble Apex
Court in Sophia Ghulam Mohammad Vs State of Maharashtra) AIR
1999 SC, 3051:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 767 (1.22 seconds)Anjum Khan Aged 25 Years vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir on 20 September, 2024
28. Law is well settled that right to be communicated the grounds of
detention flows from Article 22(5) while the right to be supplied all the material
on which the grounds are based, flows from the right given to the detenue to
make a representation against the order of detention. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of "Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra &Ors."
reported in (AIR 1999 SC 3051), has held as under: -
Naseer Ahmad Dar vs Union Territory Of J&K And on 13 April, 2023
Now, an effective representation can be made against the
order of detention only when copies of the material documents which
were considered and relied upon by the Detaining Authority in
forming his opinion that the detention of Bham Faisal Gulam
Mohammed was necessary, were supplied to him. It is only when he
has looked into those documents, read and understood their contents
that it can be said that the detenu can make an effective
representation to the Detaining Authority, State or Central
Government, as laid down in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution which
provides as under:
Sk. Munu Alias Sk. Raffique vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 15 January, 2004
In the case of Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra) cited by Mr Debashis Das, the Supreme Court has held that the word "grounds" used in Clause-5 of Article 22 of the Constitution means "not only the narration or conclusion of facts but also all materials on which those facts or conclusions which constitutes "grounds" are based." If, therefore, there were materials with the District Magistrate to show that the petitioner was likely to move the Additional Sessions Judge for bail and there was possibility of his being released on bail, he should have indicated in the grounds of detention communicated to the petitioner not only these facts but also the materials in support of such facts so that the petitioner could effectively exercise his right of representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Thus, if we accept the contention that the District Magistrate, Kendrapara
after being satisfied that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge passed the order of detention, then the order of detention was illegal for non
communication of this ground of detention to the petitioner and for violation of the provisions of Clause-5 of Article 22 of the Constitution.
Peerzada Shah Fahad vs Union Territory Of J&K & Anr on 13 April, 2023
10) It needs no emphasis that the detenue cannot be expected to
make an effective and purposeful representation which is his
constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India, unless and until the material, on which the
detention is based, is supplied to the detenue. The failure on the
part of detaining authority to supply the material renders the
15
detention order illegal and unsustainable. While holding so, I am
fortified by the judgments rendered in Sophia Ghulam Mohd.
Bham V. State of Maharashtra and others (AIR 1999 SC 3051),
Thahira Haris Etc. Etc.
Israil And Israr Pahelvan Nazirahmed ... vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 2000
In case of SOPHIA GULAM MOHD. BHAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 593, the words "grounds" used in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India means not only narration of conclusions and facts but also all materials on which those facts or conclusions which constitute "grounds" are based.
Abdul Hamid Khan vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 23 August, 2023
28. A similar view has been expressed by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in
Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (AIR 1999 SC
3051). The relevant para is reproduced as under:
Manzoor Ahmad Mir vs Ut Of J&K & Anr on 2 August, 2023
12) In Sophia Ghulam Mohd. Bham V. State of Maharashtra and
others" (AIR 1999 SC 3051), the Supreme Court has observed as
under:
Israil @ Israr Pahelvan Nazirahmed ... vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 2000
In case of Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 1999 (6) SCC 593, the words "grounds" used in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India means not only narration of conclusions and facts but also all materials on which those facts or conclusions which constitute "grounds" are based.
Balwander Singh @ Goru (Aged: 20 Years) vs Union Territory Of Jammu & on 6 February, 2024
20. Again, the Apex Court in "Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of
Maharashtra reported in (1999) 6 SCC 593" in para 11, has observed that
effective representation by the detenu can be made only when copies of the
Page 10 of 23 HCP No.37/2023
material documents which were considered and relied upon by the detaining
authority in forming its opinion were supplied to him.