SARABJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A detention order dated July 21, 1986 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was passed by the respondent-State of Punjab against the petitioner Sarabjit Singh. In pursuance of this order the petitioner was detained on August 2, 1986. The detention order was subsequently confirmed by the State Government vide order dated January 29, 1987 (Annexure P. 2). The validity of the detention order as also the order of confirmation has been assailed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE impugned orders are liable to be quashed on the simple ground that the petitioner's representation against his detention was not decided promptly and the delay in the disposal of the same remains unexplained. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a large number of cases that the delay in the disposal of the representation made by a detenu which his not been sufficiently explained, is by itself a sufficient ground for setting aside the order of detention. It was observed in Adbus Sukkur v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R, 1972 Supreme Court 1915 that the earliest opportunity has to be granted to the detenu for making a representation against the order of detention necessarily implies that as and when the representation is made it should be dealt with a promptly. It was held that the object underlying Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution would be defeated if the authority concerned pays no prompt attention to the representation of the detenu.

(3.) AFTER the receipt of the comments from the Senior Superintendent of Police, the representation is said to have been examined on various levels from October 25 1986 to November 7, 1986 when it was rejected. There is, however, no explanation as to why such a longtime was taken to process the representation, The return filed by the respondent indicates that the representation remained entirely unattended on October 31, November 3 and 4, 1986. In the circumstances mentioned above the delay of more than one month in disposing of the representation is such an inordinate delay which would vitiate the order of detention In similar circumstances the detention order was quashed by the Supreme Court in Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 320.