Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.47 seconds)
Mohammed Kunhi vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 27 September, 1991 cites

K.M. Abdulla Kunhi And B.L. Abdul Khader vs Union Of India And Ors., State Of ... on 23 January, 1991

Ultimately the writ petition was dismissed. A few other observations made in the said decision were quoted by a larger Bench (of 5 Judges) in K. M. Abdulla Kunhi and B. L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India, and the decision in Frances Coralie Mullin's case, (1980 Cri LJ 548) (SC) was affirmed by this Constitutional Bench. The Court after quoting some of the observations in the said case, held :
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 724 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Frances Coralie Mullin vs W. C. Khambra & Ors on 27 February, 1980

"We agree with the observations in Frances Coralie Mullin case, . The time imperative for consideration of representation can never be absolute or obsessive. It depends upon the necessities and the time at which the representation is made. The representation may be received before the case is referred to the Advisory Board, but there may not be time to dispose of the representation before referring the case to the Advisory Board. In that situation the representation must also be forwarded to the Advisory Board along with the case of the detenu. The representation may be received after the case of the detenu is referred to the Board. Even in this situation the representation should be forwarded to the Advisory Board provided the Board has not concluded the proceedings. In both the situations there is no question of consideration of the representation before the receipt of report of the Advisory Board. Nor it could be said that the Government has delayed consideration of the representation, unnecessarily awaiting the report of the Board. It is proper for the Government in such situations to await the report of the Board. If the Board finds no material for detention on the merits and reports accordingly, the Government is bound to revoke the order of detention. Secondly, even if the Board expresses the view that there is sufficient cause for detention, the Government after considering the representation could revoke the detention. The Board has to submit its report within eleven weeks from the date of detention. The Advisory Board may hear the detenu at his request. The Constitution of the Board shows that it consists of eminent persons who are Judges or persons qualified to be Judges of the High Court. It is, therefore, proper that the Government considers the representation in the aforesaid two situations only after the receipt of the report of the Board. If the representation is received by the Government after the Advisory Board has made its report, there could then of course be no question of sending the representation to the Advisory Board. It will have to be dealt with and disposed of by the Government as early as possible."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 118 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1