Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.30 seconds)
Anthony Alias Sandy John Nigero vs S. Ramamurthi, Commissioner Of Police ... on 26 November, 1992 cites

A. K. Roy, Etc vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 December, 1981

What transpired at the meeting dated 26-6-1992 is stated in the affidavit of the Secretary of the Board correctness of which is not disputed before us. The members of the Board made querries to the Petitioner and asked whether his next friend was present. He replied in the negative and did not pray for adjournment. The Members of the Board made some queries to S.I. Mahale and P.I. Deshmukh at the end. It is against the above factual backdrop that the validity of the grievance has to be judged. Now, the Petitioner has been made aware of his right of representation - Constitutional as well as statutory - Neither the Constitution nor the statute makes it mandatory to permit assistance of next friend to the detenu or adducing evidence in rebuttal by him. This right is spelt out from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A. K. Roy v. Union of India, . Supreme Court has indicated that if asked for by the detenu, those opportunities ought to be granted. No where we notice requirement of giving advance information to the detenu, about those rights. It is submitted that right of representation can never be effectively exercised without those opportunities and hence failure to intimate those rights adversely affects the right of representation itself and on that count the order of detention gets vitiated. The submission cannot be accepted, for its acceptance would amount to stretching the ratio of the Supreme Court decision and the width of the right to receive intimation about the right of representation too far.
Supreme Court of India Cites 105 - Cited by 516 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 Next