UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER versus VASANBHARTHI AND OTHERS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER versus VASANBHARTHI AND OTHERS

Since the family members had sufficient knowledge of the detention and place of detention by virtue of the mittimus and visits within two days, there was no contravention of the observation in A.K. Roy's case; therefore, the detention order was not invalidated on these grounds.

Parties
Appellant: Union of India; Appellant: Additional Secretary to the Government of India; Respondent: Vasanbharthi Jivanbharthi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 March 1990
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court, With Remand to High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment set aside; matter remitted to High Court for consideration of other contentions.
Legal Topics
Detention Order, Notification to Family, Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974, Article 21 of Constitution
Criminal Law Preventive Detention Detention Order Notification to Family Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 Article 21 of Constitution

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 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union of India

Appellant

Additional Secretary to the Government of India

Appellant

Vasanbharthi Jivanbharthi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court, With Remand to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the failure to inform the detenu’s relatives of the detention order and place of detention invalidates the detention under Article 21 and the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974

Ratio Decidendi

Since the family members had sufficient knowledge of the detention and place of detention by virtue of the mittimus and visits within two days, there was no contravention of the observation in A.K. Roy's case; therefore, the detention order was not invalidated on these grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment set aside; matter remitted to High Court for consideration of other contentions.

Orders

  • Matter remitted to High Court for consideration on merits.
  • Detenu shall not be taken into custody to serve unexpired period of detention till High Court disposes of matter.