Supreme Court calls preventive detention invasion of personal liberty, sets aside order
NEW DELHI: Opining that unreasonable delay in passing detention order can snap “live and proximate link” between prejudicial activities and purpose of detention of a person, the SC recently set aside a detention order passed by Tripura government five months after the receipt of proposal.
“Object of the preventive detention, it becomes very imperative on the part of the detaining authority as well as the executing authorities to remain vigilant and keep their eyes skinned but not to turn a blind eye in passing the detention order at the earliest from the date of the proposal and executing the detention order because any indifferent attitude on the part of the detaining authority or executing authority would defeat the very purpose of the preventive action and turn the detention order as a dead letter and frustrate the entire proceedings,” the court said.
A bench of CJI UU Lalit, Justice SR Bhat and JB Pardiwala held that unreasonable delay between getting a proposal and passing an order for detention would make the order invalid. “If there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention & actual arrest of the detenu and in the same manner from the date of the proposal and passing of the order of detention, such delay unless satisfactorily explained throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and consequently render the detention order bad and invalid,” court said.
The court also said preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty. “... In prevention detention jurisprudence whatever little safeguards the Constitution and the enactments authorizing such detention provide assume utmost importance and must be strictly adhered to,” the apex court also said.
Diversity on Bench represents regions, minorities and cultures, says Ramana
NEW DELHI: Noting that diversity on the bench leads to a diversity of opinions, one that is built upon their different experiences in the world, former CJI NV Ramana on Saturday said that one of the facets for improving this is ensuring representation of persons belonging to minorities, regions and culture. Speaking at the summit on Cultural Diversity and the Legal Profession organised by Asian Australian Lawyers Association, Ramana also said that during his tenure as the CJI he attempted to ensure the appointment of judges from diverse backgrounds.
“In all my time in the various collegia, and particularly during my time as the Chief Justice of India, I tried to ensure diverse representation on the Bench through the recommendations we sent. Almost all the recommendations made by us were cleared by the Government of India.
I can proudly state that our recommendations resulted in the appointment of the greatest number of women judges on the Bench in the Supreme Court of India at any one point of time. India is also slated to get her first woman Chief Justice of India,” Ramana said. He acknowledged the absence of an institutional mechanism to ensure diversity on the bench.