UMMU SABEENA versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
Unexplained delay of over two months by Central Government in disposing detenus’ representations breached constitutional imperative under Article 22(5); continued detention is therefore illegal and orders must be quashed.
- Parties
- Appellant: Ummu Sabeena; Respondent: State of Kerala; Respondent: Union of India; Respondent: Additional respondents (Ors.); Vishal Saxena; B. Krishna Prasad; M.T. George
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 17 November 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Rejecting Writ of Habeas Corpus
- Outcome
- Appeals allowed; orders of detention quashed
- Legal Topics
- Preventive Detention, COFEPOSA, Habeas Corpus, Delay in Consideration of Representation, Article 22(5)
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ummu Sabeena
Appellant
State of Kerala
Respondent
Union of India
Respondent
Additional respondents (Ors.)
Respondent
Vishal Saxena
B. Krishna Prasad
M.T. George
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Rejecting Writ of Habeas Corpus
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether delay by Central Government in considering and disposing the detention representation violates Article 22(5) and renders detention illegal
- 2 Whether technical objections relating to prayer in the Habeas Corpus petition are sustainable
Ratio Decidendi
Unexplained delay of over two months by Central Government in disposing detenus’ representations breached constitutional imperative under Article 22(5); continued detention is therefore illegal and orders must be quashed.
Court Disposition
Appeals allowed; orders of detention quashed
Orders
- Detenus directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.
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