R.KESHAVA versus M.B. PRAKASH AND ORS.

R.KESHAVA versus M.B. PRAKASH AND ORS.

If the detenu, despite being intimated of his right to make a representation to the appropriate Government, only addresses a representation to the Advisory Board and not to the Government or requests such transmission, the Government is not obliged to seek out or consider such a representation in the confirmation of detention. The Advisory Board is not statutorily required to forward every representation to the Government. Accordingly, confirmation of detention in absence of such representation or Government’s knowledge of it is neither unconstitutional nor illegal.

Parties
Appellant: R. Keshava; Respondent: M.B. Prakash
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Dismissing Writ Petition Challenging Preventive Detention
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention, Article 22(5) Representation, COFEPOSA Act, Advisory Board Procedure
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Preventive Detention Article 22(5) Representation 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.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. Keshava

Appellant

M.B. Prakash

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Dismissing Writ Petition Challenging Preventive Detention

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure of the appropriate Government to consider a representation addressed only to the Advisory Board renders the confirmation of detention unconstitutional or illegal under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and COFEPOSA Act, 1974
  2. 2 Whether the Advisory Board has a duty to forward or furnish the entire record, including representations addressed to it, to the Government

Ratio Decidendi

If the detenu, despite being intimated of his right to make a representation to the appropriate Government, only addresses a representation to the Advisory Board and not to the Government or requests such transmission, the Government is not obliged to seek out or consider such a representation in the confirmation of detention. The Advisory Board is not statutorily required to forward every representation to the Government. Accordingly, confirmation of detention in absence of such representation or Government’s knowledge of it is neither unconstitutional nor illegal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed. The confirmation of detention by the appropriate Government is upheld.