Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)

Powanammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 15 January, 1999

7. The decision of Powanammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1999 SC 618 was cited before this Court. In this case, the Supreme Court has clearly observed that a distinction has through-out been maintained by the Supreme Court between the documents which are relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention and a document which found mere reference in the grounds of detention. Whereas non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to continued detention, the detenue need not show that any prejudice is caused to him, because non supply of such a document would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making an effective representation against the order. But it would not be so where the document merely finds a reference in the order of detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenue's complaint of non supply of document has to be supported by prejudice caused to him in making an effective representation. What applies to a document, would equally apply to furnishing translated copy of the document in the language known to and understood by the detenue, should the document be in a different language. In this decision rendered by a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, the principle, as narrated hereinabove, has been laid down and the non supply of the translation of a document in the language known to and understood by the detenue in case the document is in a different language has been treated at par with the documents, supply of which was essential and further that barring the cases, wherein only a reference is made to a document in the grounds of detention, the cases in which the documents were relied upon in the grounds of detention, it is not necessary to show any prejudice because such non supply of such a document itself is fatal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 352 - Full Document

Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 October, 1991

In the case of Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1991 SC 2261, a question was considered with regard to the non supply of the bail application and an order refusing bail. Ofcourse in the facts of the case before the Supreme Court, the detenue's bail application had in fact been rejected but this fact was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority and the detaining authority had proceeded on the basis that the petitioner was in judicial custody and possibility of his release on bail in the near future cannot be ruled out. That was a case under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act and it was observed that what would be the compelling reasons in the context would depend upon the facts of each case. While referring to the case of Mst.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 251 - S R Pandian - Full Document

M. Ahamedkutty vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 January, 1990

In M. Ahmedkutty v. Union of India, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 1, the contention was specifically considered that the bail application and the order granting bail, which were relied upon by the detaining authority, were not supplied to the detenu and, therefore, the detention was illegal. It was noticed that in the grounds it was clearly mentioned that the detenu was remanded to judicial custody and was subsequently released on bail. Therefore these documents were in fact placed before the detaining authority and were relied upon by him and, therefore, non supply of these relevant documents to the detenu disabled him to make an effective representation. Therefore, there was violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. In this very decision it was observed that all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority must be pari passu supplied to the detenu.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 164 - K N Saikia - Full Document
1