Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)Hem Lall Bhandari vs State Of Sikkim And Others on 28 January, 1987
11. The second decision relied on is Hem Lall Bhandari vs. State of Sikkim
(AIR 1987 S.C. 762), which arose under the National Security Act (in short
"the N.S. Act"). In that case, on 14.10.1986, the petitioner was served with
the order of detention, the grounds of detention and the supporting documents.
The Supreme Court held that the delay caused in serving the grounds of
detention from 02.10.1986 to 14 .10.1986, clearly violates Section 8(1) of
N.S. Act. As a bare reading of Section 8(1) of N.S. Act shows that it is
obligatory on the detaining officer to communicate to the detenu, the grounds
on which the order of detention has been made promptly and this has to be done
as soon as possible and ordinarily not later than 5 days and the detaining
authority is permitted to exceed this period of 5 days in exceptional
circumstances. The Supreme Court also held that the grounds of detention
under exceptional circumstances can be communicated to the detenu within a
period not later than 15 days from the date of detention but when the
detaining authority takes time more than 5 days, he has to record reasons as
to why the grounds of detention could not be communicated within 5 days.
Their Lordships have further held that, even if the reasons are recorded, they
have to inspire confidence of the Court and are subject to legal scrutiny.
According to their Lordships, if the reasons were unsatisfactory, the Court
has to quash the order of detention. In that case, as rightly pointed out by
the learned Government Advocate, the grounds of detention were communicated to
the petitioner after 10 days and absolutely there was no recorded reason for
the long delay. In such circumstances, in the absence of any material record
for long delay, the Supreme Court arrived at a conclusion that the order of
detention is bad and ultimately quashed the same. As stated earlier, such is
not the position in our case. Except the special report, all other documents,
grounds of detention, etc., were supplied to the detenu within the prescribed
period. We are of the view that inasmuch as the Supreme Court has quashed the
order of detention only on the ground that there was no acceptable or
satisfactory explanation from the Officer for the delay, the same is not
applicable to the case on hand.
The National Security Act, 1980
Section 8 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
Ibrahim Ahmad Batti vs State Of Gujarat & Others on 13 October, 1982
7. The learned senior counsel by drawing our attention to
Sections 3 (3) and 8 (1) of the Act contended that the reason given is not a
"exceptional circumstance" as stated in sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the
Act and in any event inasmuch as the Government approved the order of
detention only on 16.12.2005 and the special report was served on the detenu
on 15.12.2005, in the absence of any reference in the order of approval by the
Government, the detention order is liable to be quashed. He also relied on
the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Ibrahim Ahmad Batti vs.
State of Gujarat (AIR 1982 SC 1500) and Hem Lall Bhandari vs. State of Sikkim
(AIR 1987 SC 762).
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1