HARBANS LAL versus M.L. WADHAWAN & ORS.
Denial of the detenu's right to examine witnesses before the Advisory Board constitutes an error of law, rendering the continued detention invalid; the right to adduce oral evidence is a constitutional safeguard to be read into the COFEPOSA Act.
- Parties
- Petitioner: Harbans Lal; Respondent: M.L. Wadhawan & Ors.
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 04 December 1986
- Procedural Posture
- Special Leave Petition (criminal) & Writ Petition (criminal) / Appeal From Delhi High Court Judgment and Order Dated 26.8.1986
- Outcome
- Petitions allowed, detention order quashed, detenu to be released forthwith.
- Legal Topics
- Preventive Detention, Right of Detenu, Procedural Safeguards, COFEPOSA Act, Advisory Board Procedure
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Harbans Lal
Petitioner
M.L. Wadhawan & Ors.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (criminal) & Writ Petition (criminal) / Appeal From Delhi High Court Judgment and Order Dated 26.8.1986
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the detenu has the right to present oral evidence and examine witnesses before the Advisory Board under the COFEPOSA Act
- 2 Whether the Central Government is obliged to consider the entire material, including witnesses' availability, before confirming detention
Ratio Decidendi
Denial of the detenu's right to examine witnesses before the Advisory Board constitutes an error of law, rendering the continued detention invalid; the right to adduce oral evidence is a constitutional safeguard to be read into the COFEPOSA Act.
Court Disposition
Petitions allowed, detention order quashed, detenu to be released forthwith.
Orders
- Detention order against Om Prakash quashed
- Judgment of the Delhi High Court set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment