Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.39 seconds)Rajammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Another on 14 December, 1998
(v) In yet another decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 1999 (1) SCC 417 (Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu), it is held that it is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. Though no period is prescribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be taken on the representation, the words as soon as may be in clause (5) of Article 22 convey the message that the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest. But that does not mean that the authority is preempted from explaining any delay which would have occasioned in the disposal of the representation. The Court can certainly consider whether the delay was occasioned due to the permissible reasons or unavoidable causes. If delay was caused on account of any indifference or lapse in considering the representation such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner. In other words, it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposing of the representation. It is not enough to say that the delay was very short. Even longer delay can as well be explained. So the test is not the duration or range of delay, but how it is explained by the authority concerned. Even the reason that the Minister was on tour and hence there was a delay of five days in disposing of the representation was rejected by the Apex Court holding that when the liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is involved, the absence of the Minister at head quarters is not sufficient to justify the delay, since the file could be reached the Minister with utmost promptitude in cases involving the vitally important fundamental right of a citizen.
Tara Chand vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 13 February, 1980
(iv) In Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1980 (2) SCC 321 and Raghavendra Singh v. Superintendent, District Jail, 1986 (1) SCC 650, the Honourable Supreme Court held that any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the detention illegal.
Raghavendra Singh vs Superintendent, District Jail, Kanpur ... on 28 November, 1985
(iv) In Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1980 (2) SCC 321 and Raghavendra Singh v. Superintendent, District Jail, 1986 (1) SCC 650, the Honourable Supreme Court held that any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the detention illegal.
K.M. Abdulla Kunhi And B.L. Abdul Khader vs Union Of India And Ors., State Of ... on 23 January, 1991
(vi) In K.M.Abdulla Kunni v. Union of India, 1991 (1) SCC 476, it is held as follows:-
Ahammed Kutty Appurath Poyil vs The Union Of India Represented By on 3 April, 2009
13. The Honourable Supreme Court in M.Ahamed Kutty Vs. Union of India and another (1990-2-SCC-1) has observed thus:-