SURENDER KUMAR ARORA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is now a settled proposition that a detenu has a right to be represented by a friend of his choice. He has also the right to examine witnesses to rebut the allegations made against him in the grounds of detention. The only embargo is that the witnesses must be present as there is no duty cast on the Advisory Board to summon the witnesses of the detenu. This right has been declared in the nature of a constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and if this right is denied to the detenu, the order of the detention must fail.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that he had made a representation wherein he specifically named witnesses, talked about their presence outside the room where the Advisory Board was sitting and had expressed a desire to examine them in rebuttal of the allegations against him. This request was rejected outright, thus depriving him of his right of hearing and this is thus a case of denial of his constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE respondent's case, as disclosed in the affidavit of detaining authority, is that the petitioner never made any representation nor any oral request to the Advisory Board for the examination of his witnesses and as such the question of examination of the witnesses does not arise. There is thus no violation of the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India.