KAVITA W/O SUNDER SHANKARDAS DEVIDASANI ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

KAVITA W/O SUNDER SHANKARDAS DEVIDASANI ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

There is no requirement for the Government to specify a period of detention at the stage of making a detention order under COFEPOSA; reference to the Advisory Board is a mechanical act and may be conducted by subordinate officers; the Minister of State for Home Affairs is competent to dispose of representations under Maharashtra Rules of Business; the detenu has no statutory right to be represented by a lawyer before the Advisory Board, but requests for legal assistance are to be considered by the Board; clerical mistakes in documentation, if rectified, do not violate constitutional or statutory safeguards.

Parties
Petitioner: KA VITA W/O SUNDER SHANKARDAS DEVIDASANI ETC.; Respondent: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ETC. ETC.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 July 1981
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (criminal) / Original Jurisdiction, Final Decision
Outcome
Petitions dismissed.
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention, Procedural Fairness, Right to Legal Representation, Government Rules of Business
Constitutional Law Preventive Detention Law Preventive Detention Procedural Fairness Right to Legal Representation Government Rules of Business

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KA VITA W/O SUNDER SHANKARDAS DEVIDASANI ETC.

Petitioner

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (criminal) / Original Jurisdiction, Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the initial order of detention needs to specify the period of detention.
  2. 2 Whether the reference to the Advisory Board must be made by the Government or can it be made by a subordinate officer.
  3. 3 Whether the representation of the detenu must be considered by the same individual who made the original detention order.

Ratio Decidendi

There is no requirement for the Government to specify a period of detention at the stage of making a detention order under COFEPOSA; reference to the Advisory Board is a mechanical act and may be conducted by subordinate officers; the Minister of State for Home Affairs is competent to dispose of representations under Maharashtra Rules of Business; the detenu has no statutory right to be represented by a lawyer before the Advisory Board, but requests for legal assistance are to be considered by the Board; clerical mistakes in documentation, if rectified, do not violate constitutional or statutory safeguards.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed.

Orders

  • W.P. No. 2690/81 dismissed.
  • W.P. No. 3241/81 dismissed.