Detenu always entitled to legible copy of grounds of detention: Supreme Court [Read Judgement]

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said a man is always entitled to be supplied with the legible copies of the documents relied upon by the authority for detention or it would affect his fundamental right to make effective representation.

"The right to make representation being a fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution in order to make effective representation, the detenu is always entitled to be supplied with the legible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority and such information made in the grounds of detention enables him to make an effective representation," a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and C T Ravikumar said.

The top court dismissed an appeal filed by the Manipur government against the High Court's order setting aside detention order passed against Buyamayum Abdul Hanan alias Anand under Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.

The High Court had allowed a writ petition on the premise that the state authorities failed to supply the legible copies regarding the grounds of detention.

The court rejected the state government's contention that the man had failed to raise such a plea before authorities.
"We find no substance that merely   because the man has failed to raise this question before the detaining authority which go into root of the matter to take away the right vested in the detenu in assailing the order of detention while availing the remedy available to him under Article 226 of the Constitution," the bench said.

"The right of personal liberty and individual freedom which is probably the most cherished is not, in any manner, arbitrarily to be taken away from him even temporarily without following the procedure prescribed by law. Once the detenu was able to satisfy while assailing the order of detention before the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction Article 226 of the Constitution holding that the grounds of detention did not satisfy the rigors of proof as a foundational effect which has enabled him in making effective representation in assailing the order of detention in view of the protection provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, the same renders the order of detention illegal and we find no error being committed by the High Court in setting aside the order of preventive detention under the impugned judgment," the bench added.

[Read Judgement]