ANKIT ASHOK JALAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

ANKIT ASHOK JALAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Majority: Where a detention order under s.3 COFEPOSA is passed by a specially empowered officer, the detained person may make a representation to that Detaining Authority and the Detaining Authority is obliged to consider it independently and without awaiting the Advisory Board’s report; failure to do so denies the detained person a constitutional right and justifies quashing of continued detention. On the facts, the Detaining Authority’s inaction from 27.11.2019 to 14.01.2020 was undue and violated constitutional rights, and the detention orders were quashed and the detenues directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in other proceedings.

Parties
Petitioner: ANKIT ASHOK JALAN; Respondent: Union of India and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (criminal) No.362 of 2019 / Judgment (article 32 Petition)
Legal Topics
COFEPOSA Act S.3(1), Representation Against Detention, Role of Detaining Authority Vs Appropriate Government, Advisory Board Report and Confidentiality (section 8), Article 22(5) Rights, Section 21 General Clauses Act Revocation Power
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Preventive Detention Administrative Law COFEPOSA Act S.3(1) Representation Against Detention Role of Detaining Authority Vs Appropriate Government Advisory Board Report and Confidentiality (section 8) +2 more

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ANKIT ASHOK JALAN

Petitioner

Union of India and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (criminal) No.362 of 2019 / Judgment (article 32 Petition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a representation can be made to and must be considered by the Detaining Authority who is a specially empowered officer under s.3 of the COFEPOSA Act
  2. 2 Whether the Detaining Authority is obliged to consider such a representation without waiting for the report of the Advisory Board
  3. 3 Whether the delay in consideration of representation from 27.11.2019 to 14.01.2020 amounted to undue delay violating constitutional rights

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: Where a detention order under s.3 COFEPOSA is passed by a specially empowered officer, the detained person may make a representation to that Detaining Authority and the Detaining Authority is obliged to consider it independently and without awaiting the Advisory Board’s report; failure to do so denies the detained person a constitutional right and justifies quashing of continued detention. On the facts, the Detaining Authority’s inaction from 27.11.2019 to 14.01.2020 was undue and violated constitutional rights, and the detention orders were quashed and the detenues directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in other proceedings.