Skip to content


Balchand Choraria Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 413 of 1977
Judge
Reported inAIR1978SC297; 1978CriLJ159; (1978)1SCC161; [1978]2SCR401; 1978(10)LC118(SC)
ActsConstitution of India - Article 21
AppellantBalchand Choraria
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi) and ors.
Appellant Advocate Ram Jethmalani,A.K. Sen,; Harijinder Singh and; M.N. Lodha
Respondent Advocate S.N. Kacher, ; R.P. Bhat and ; Girish Chandra, Advs.
Prior historyAppeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated August 12, 1977 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Writ No.37/77
Excerpt:
criminal - detention - article 21 of constitution of india - representations filed by detenu through his counsel disregarded by government - high court erred in viewing that such representation by counsel was not on behalf of detenu - representation itself recited that counsel was acting on behalf of his detained client - representations of detenu to be construed liberally - disregard to such representation by government vitiated detention order - held, detenu be released forthwith. - - the representation has been placed before us and it clearly recites that mr......was not given by the detenu himself but by mr. jethmalani in his capacity as a member of the parliament. the representation has been placed before us and it clearly recites that mr. jethmalani acted not as a member of the parliament but on instructions from his client, namely, the detenu. in the circumstances, therefore, the high court was in error in construing the representation made by the petitioner as being made not by him but by his counsel. it is manifest that the counsel had no personal matter and he was only advocating the cause of his client. in matters where the liberty of the subject is concerned and a highly cherished right is involved, the representations made by the detenu should be construed liberally and not technically so as to frustratee or defeat the concept of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

fazal Ali , J.

1. In support of the rule Mr. Jethmalani submitted; a short point before us. It was argued that the representation filed by the detenu through his counsel has not been considered by the Government at all. The High Court was of the view that the aforesaid representation was not given by the detenu himself but by Mr. Jethmalani in his capacity as a member of the Parliament. The representation has been placed before us and it clearly recites that Mr. Jethmalani acted not as a member of the Parliament but on instructions from his client, namely, the detenu. In the circumstances, therefore, the High Court was in error in construing the representation made by the petitioner as being made not by him but by his counsel. It is manifest that the counsel had no personal matter and he was only advocating the cause of his client. In matters where the liberty of the subject is concerned and a highly cherished right is involved, the representations made by the detenu should be construed liberally and not technically so as to frustratee or defeat the concept of liberty which is engrained in Article 21 of the Constitution. As the representation has not been considered at all by the Government which it was duty bound to consider, that by itself vitiates the order of detention. We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct the appellant to be released forthwith. The order of this Court releasing the appellant on parole, passed by us on the last hearing, is vacated as having become infructuous.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //