SYED FAROOQ MOHAMMAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

SYED FAROOQ MOHAMMAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

The preventive detention order was not vitiated by delay as the delay was explained by the petitioner's own absconding and evasion of arrest. The link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention was not snapped. Non-supply of certain documents which were not relied upon by the detaining authority did not prejudice the petitioner's right to make an effective representation. There was no material to show non-application of mind or mala fides by the detaining authority. Thus, the detention order is legal and valid.

Parties
Petitioner: Syed Farooq Mohammad; Respondents: Union of India and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 May 1990
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (criminal) Under Article 32 / Supreme Court Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Procedure Under Article 22(5), Delay in Detention Execution
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Preventive Detention Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Procedure Under Article 22(5) Delay in Detention Execution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Syed Farooq Mohammad

Petitioner

Union of India and Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (criminal) Under Article 32 / Supreme Court Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether unexplained delay in execution of a preventive detention order vitiates the detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988
  2. 2 Whether non-supply of bail application and order thereon prejudices the detenue's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether failure of the detaining authority to swear a counter-affidavit vitiates the detention order

Ratio Decidendi

The preventive detention order was not vitiated by delay as the delay was explained by the petitioner's own absconding and evasion of arrest. The link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention was not snapped. Non-supply of certain documents which were not relied upon by the detaining authority did not prejudice the petitioner's right to make an effective representation. There was no material to show non-application of mind or mala fides by the detaining authority. Thus, the detention order is legal and valid.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • The order of detention is upheld as valid and legal.