Permanent Imprint Leading Cases

Ratio of Decision Must Be Understood In Background of Facts of Case And The Judgment Not To Be Read As Euclid’s Theorem

Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 628: (2009) 1 Bom CR (Cri) 62: (2009) 1 EFR 76

Facts : The writ petition under article 32 of the Constitution was filed to challenge the detention order dated 22nd May, 2008 passed against the petitioner Deepak Gopaldas Bajaj, resident of Mumbai under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

Issue : Application of Euclid’s theorem to ratio decidendi.

Decision : If a person against whom a preventive detention order has been passed comes to the court at the pre-execution stage and satisfies the court that the detention order is clearly illegal, there is no reason why the court should stay its hands and compel the petitioner to go to jail even though he is bound to be released subsequently (since the detention order was illegal). The liberty of a person is a precious fundamental right under article 21 of the Constitution and should not be likely to be transgressed. Further, the relevant material was not placed before the detaining authority and this vitiated the detention order. Hence, the detention order was clearly illegal and deserved to be set aside and such detention order was quashed.

Leave a Comment