For further details, please visit us at: https://youtu.be/L44QwOfb06k This video deals with an important judgment titled "THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS. vs. BUYAMAYUM ABDUL HANAN @ ANAND & ANR.” pronounced on 19th Oct 2022 and in this judgment, the Supreme Court has held that supply of illegible or blurred copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority amounts to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution (Detention Case (2022)). To know more about it, please watch the video fully... Constitution/Criminal Law THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS. vs. BUYAMAYUM ABDUL HANAN @ ANAND & ANR. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/2780/2780_2022_6_1501_39157_Judgement_19-Oct-2022.pdf The video content is created by Michael Anand. I (BA., BL) who is the owner of this YouTube Channel titled "Aanand Law Reporter". He has 5 years' experience in Content Management at MLJ (Madras Law Journal) and LLJ (Labour Law Journal) which belong to Lexis Nexis and 2 years' experience at Thomson Reuters... Thanks for watching the video. I request you to like, share, comment on it, and don't forget to subscribe to our channel...

1. In the important judgment titled “THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS. vs. BUYAMAYUM ABDUL HANAN
@ ANAND & ANR.”, pronounced on 19th Oct 2022, the main thrust on which the writ petition was
filed assailing the detention order was that respondent no.1 was not supplied with legible copies of
the documents relied upon by the detaining authority and took away the valuable right of
respondent no.1 in making an effective representation. Further, the right to make a representation
is a fundamental right and non-supply of the legible copies of the documents relied upon by the
authorities in passing the detention order is in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Manipur
High Court set aside the detention order passed under Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988. Being aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed.
The supreme court has held that Article 22(5) of the Constitution confers two rights on the detenu,
firstly, the right to be informed of the grounds on which the detention order has been made and,
secondly, to be afforded an earliest opportunity to make a representation against the detention
order. Also, right to make a representation implies that the detenu should have all the information
that will enable him to make an effective representation. This right is again subject to the right or
privilege given by clause (6). At the same time, refusal to supply the documents requested by the
detenu or supply of illegible or blurred copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining
authority amounts to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The right to make representation is a fundamental right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution and supply of the illegible copy of documents which were relied upon by the detaining
authority indeed deprived him in making an effective representation and denial thereof will hold the
detention order illegal and not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law. It is the
admitted case of the parties that respondent no.1 failed to question before the detaining authority
that illegible or blurred copies were supplied to him which were relied upon while passing the
detention order, but the right to make representation being a fundamental right under Article 22(5)
of the Constitution in order to make effective representation, the detenu is always entitled to be
supplied with the legible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority and such
information made in the grounds of detention enables him to make an effective representation.

2. Further, it was specifically raised by the respondents in their writ petition and the reference was
made in the petition referred and in the pleadings on record, there was no denial in the counter filed
by the appellants before the High Court that the documents which were supplied and relied upon by
the detaining authority were legible and that did not deny respondent no.1 in making effective
representation while questioning the detention order. Once this fact remain uncontroverted from
the records as being placed before the High Court and the legal principles being settled, this court
finds no substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants that merely
because respondent no.1 failed to raise this question before the detaining authority which go into
root of the matter to take away the right vested in the detenu in assailing the detention order while
availing the remedy available to him under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, this court finds
no error being committed by the High Court in setting aside the detention order.