Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE LEGAL AID COMMITTEE, J & K versus STATE OF J & K AND ORS.

Decided
5 November 2004
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 1090 · 2004 INSC 646
Also cited as
  • AIR 2005 SC 1270 (4 citing judgments)
  • (2005) 9 SCC 667 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Though several questions have been raised in this petition, it is not necessary to deal with them in detail as we find that there is no definite material to show that the requirements of Section 13 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (in short the 'Act' ) requiring the grounds of order of detention to be disclosed/communicated to the person affected by the order has been complied with. Though, in the affidavit filed by State, it has been stated that the contents of the warrants and grounds of

p. 1090, margin F

091 detention were served, read over and explained to the assessee and he was informed about his right to make a representation against the detention, if he so desired, there is no material placed on record to substantiate this stand. It is stated in the affidavit that the detenue refused to receive copy of the detention order and also refused to put his signatures on the documents. The least the State could have done is to file an affidavit of the person who wanted to serve the relevant documents and an endorsement to the effect that there was refusal. Even the name of the official has not been indicated in the affidavit. That would have been sufficient to comply with the requirements of Section 13 of the Act.

p. 1091

Though a prayer for extension of time is made to file the details, we find that the currency of the detention order is expiring on 06.11.2004. Therefore, we do not accept the prayer for extension of time. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no bar on a fresh order of detention being passed. We do not express any opinion in this regard. In the present proceedings, the order of detention of the detenue is quashed. This however, shall not stand in the way of such action being taken by the State and/or any authority in accordance withlaw.

p. 1091, margin C

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. R.P. Writ Petition disposed of.

p. 1091, margin D