Criminal Writ Petition No. 484 of 1996. Case: Sunil alias Gotya Vishwanath Masurkar Vs R. D. Tyagi Commissioner of Police and others. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Writ Petition No. 484 of 1996 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: U. N. Tripathi, Adv. and For Respondents: Mrs. V. K. Tahilramani A. P. P. and J. C. Satpute, Adv. |
| Judges | V. Sahai, J. and A. S. V. Moorthy, J. |
| Issue | National Security Act; Constitution of India |
| Citation | 1997 CriLJ 633 |
| Judgement Date | October 25, 1996 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Vishnu Sahai, J.
-
By means of this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/detenu seeks to challenge the detention order dated 29th January 1996, passed by respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, in exercise of the powers vested in him by Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, (No. 65 of 1980) read with Government Order, Home Department (Special) No. NSA 2395/1/SPL-3(B) dated 20th November 1995, detaining him under the National Security Act.
-
Since this petition can be disposed off on a purely legal ground on reference to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner, contained in the grounds of detention, bearing the same date as the detention order, which were served contemporaneously along with the detention order, on the petitioner on 29-1-1996, is called for.
-
The ground on which this petition, in the contention of Mr. U. N. Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner/detenu, is liable to succeed is that there is variance in the original grounds of detention which were in English and in the translated grounds of detention which were in Marathi, inasmuch as, in the former there is an averment that the detenu can make a representation against the detention order both to the Central Government and the State Government, in the latter it is mentioned that he can make a representation either to the Central Government or to the State Government. The contention of Mr. Tripathi is that since a legal right vested in the detenu to make a representation both to the Central Government as well as to the State Government, this should also have been mentioned in the Marathi translation of the grounds of detention and the said infirmity in the translation has militated against the fundamental right of the detenu guaranteed by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
The abovementioned ground contained in paragraph 6 (B) of the petition has been replied to in paragraph 9 of the return filed by respondent No. 1. The substance of paragraph 5 in the return of respondent No. 1 is that since the petitioner/detenu knew English and in the English version of the grounds of detention which was supplied to him there is a mention that he could make a representation, both to the Central Government as well as to the State Government, the fundamental right of the petitioner/ detenu of making a representation, which flows from Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of...
To continue reading
Request your trial