Detention Order A Preventive Measure, Sense Of Urgency Is Must, Failure To Serve/ Detain At Earliest Possible Defeats Its Purpose

Case: Abhishek Gupta V. Union Of India & Ors.

Coram: Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 1911/2019

Court Observation: “As such, there appears to be lack of any genuine and real necessity to again apprehend and detain the petitioner for alleged preventive purpose and the detention order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone as the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority in issuing detention order stands vitiated,”

“There is absolutely no reasonable justification for non-service of detention order dated 26.03.2019 on the petitioner, from 28.03.2019 to 05.04.2019, despite the petitioner being available to the authorities. No serious attempt appears to have been made by the respondents to serve the detention order soon after the same was made and the same is in complete defiance of constitutional mandate. The purpose of a detention order is preventive in nature and not punitive. As such, strict compliance of the procedural safeguards is fatal to the case of respondents as there was no diligent effort to serve the detention order,”

“In the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the purpose of detention order is a preventive measure and if the detenu is not served or detained at the earliest possible, keeping in view the spirit of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, the purpose is defeated.”

“The entire exercise for service of detention order appears to have been undertaken in a casual and cavalier manner, which, in our considered view is fatal to the case of the respondents. The non placement of the vital fact that the firms had been placed in Denied Entry List (DEL) before the Detaining Authority prior to passing of detention order also vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority,”

Previous Posts

Review Committee Declared Guarantors As Wilful Defaulters Without Making Any Distinction Between Borrower And Guarantor: Kerala High Court

Honorable Exoneration In Departmental Proceedings Would Warrant Quashing Of Criminal Prosecution Arising From Same Set Of Facts: Orissa High Court

Separate IGST On Indian Importers For Ocean Freight Against Concept Of “Composite Supply”, Violates Section 8 CGST Act: Supreme Court

Hindu Succession Act – HUF Property Is Presumed For Be For Widow’s Maintenance When She Has Its Settled & Exclusive Possession: Supreme Court

Continuing Unlawful Activity For Gaining Advantages Other Than Economic Or Pecuniary Is Also An “Organised Crime” Under MCOCA: Supreme Court

Arbitration Reference Not Maintainable If Filed After Admission Of Insolvency Resolution Petition U/s 7 IBC Download Judgement

Company Tribunal Not A Labour Court Or Administrative Tribunal To Focus Entirely On Removal Of Director: Supreme Court In Tata-Mistry Case

Second Appeal: Judgment Should Not Be Interfered With By High Court Unless There Is A Substantial Question Of Law, Reiterates Supreme Court

Proclaimed Offender Declaration Under Section 82(4) CrPC Cannot Be Made Against Person Accused Of Sections 406, 420 IPC