{"id":236970,"date":"1990-07-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-07-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990"},"modified":"2018-05-30T17:30:30","modified_gmt":"2018-05-30T12:00:30","slug":"smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Azra Fatima vs Union Of India And Others on 12 July, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Smt. Azra Fatima vs Union Of India And Others on 12 July, 1990<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 1763, \t\t 1990 SCR (3) 268<\/div>\n
Author: N Kasliwal<\/div>\n
Bench: Kasliwal, N.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSMT. AZRA FATIMA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/07\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nKASLIWAL, N.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nKASLIWAL, N.M. (J)\nRAY, B.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 AIR 1763\t\t  1990 SCR  (3) 268\n 1990 SCC  (1)\t76\t  JT 1990 (3)\t156\n 1990 SCALE  (2)8\n\n\nACT:\n    Prevention\tof  Illicit Traffic in\tNarcotic  Drugs\t and\nPsychotropic  Substances Act,  1988: Section 3(1), 3(3)\t and\n10(1)--Detention-Communication of grounds--Principle of five\ndays  and fifteen days-Inapplicable in respect\tof  declara-\ntion.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t petitioner filed a writ petition in the High  Court\nchallenging  the  detention of her husband,  Syed  Ali\tRaza\nShafiq\tMohammed,  under section 3(1) of the  Prevention  of\nIllicit\t Traffic  in Narcotic Drugs  and  Psychotropic\tSub-\nstances Act, 1988. The detenu was then already in jail as he\nwas involved in a case under the Act, and his bail  applica-\ntion in that case had been rejected. 3\"he Division Bench  of\nthe High Court dismissed the writ petition.\n    Before  this Court in the Special Leave Petition it\t was\ninter-alia  contended on behalf of the detenu that: (i)\t the\nmere  possibility  of the detenu's release on bail  was\t not\nenough for preventive detention unless there was material to\njustify the apprehension that his detention would be  neces-\nsary in order to prevent him from engaging in illicit  traf-\nficking\t in narcotic drugs and psychotropic  substances,  in\ncase  of his release on bail; (ii) the detention  orders  of\nRai  Chand  Shah  and Jai Lal Vora, who\t were  arrested\t and\ndetained  in the same raid, having been struck down  by\t the\nHigh Court on the ground that the medical report in  respect\nof the injuries sustained by Rai Chand Shah was placed in  a\ntruncated form before the detaining authority, the detention\norder of the detenu should also be set aside as it  suffered\nfrom the same vice; (iii) though the declaration was  issued\nunder  Sec. 10(1) of the Act on 20.1.1989 but the  same\t was\nserved on the detenu on 10.2.1989 after an unexplained delay\nof  21 days; and (iv) there was in an inordinate  and  unex-\nplained delay in considering the representations made by the\ndetenu.\n    On\tthe  other hand, it was contended on behalf  of\t the\nrespondents  that:  (i)\t it would depend on  the  facts\t and\ncircumstances of each case whether a detention order was  to\nbe  passed  or not in case of a person who  was\t already  in\ncustody;  (ii) the detaining authority could take  into\t ac-\ncount the nature of the antecedent activities of the  detenu\nin order to\n269\narrive\tat the conclusion that it was likely that after\t his\nrelease from custody he would indulge in criminal activities\nand  it was necessary to detain him in order to prevent\t him\nfrom  engaging in such activities; and (iii) in the  present\ncase there was complete awareness in the mind of the detain-\ning authority that if he was released on bail he was  likely\nto indulge in the criminal activities.\nDismissing the special leave petition, this Court,\n    HELD:  (1)\tThe  material placed  before  the  detaining\nauthority  and the facts mentioned in the grounds of  deten-\ntion  clearly  go to show that the detaining  authority\t was\nfully  aware that the bail application filed by\t the  detenu\nhad  been  rejected. The detaining authority was  also\tcon-\nscious\tof  the\t fact that the two other  detenus  who\twere\narrested  and  detained in the same raid  had  already\tbeen\nreleased on bail. [277B-C]\n    (2) The antecedents of the detenu which were clear\tfrom\nhis own statement went to show that he was initiated in drug\ntrafficking in 1984 and employed as a delivery hay on  Rs.30\nper  day and within a short span of four years\thad  himself\nstarted\t buying and selling Narcotic Drugs and amassed\thuge\nmovable\t and immovable properties in Bombay. In the  present\nraid   itself\thereoin\t and  Mandrax  tablets\t worth\t Rs.\n1,13,42,000 were seized from the ownership and possession of\nthe detenu. [277C-D]\n     (3) The detaining authority after taking into consider-\nation the material placed before him, arrived at the conclu-\nsion that the detenu being in judicial custody may under the\nnormal law of the land he granted bail and be in a  position\nto continue to pursue his nefarious activities- [277E]\n     (4)  The  detaining authority  in\tthese  circumstances\nconsidered  it\tnecessary to invoke the\t law  of  preventive\ndetention under the Act to prevent the detenu from indulging\nin prejudicial activities in future. In these circumstances,\nit cannot be said that the order of detention was illegal on\nthe  ground that it was passed while the detenu was  already\nin custody- [277F]\n     (5) The facts and circumstances of each case have to be\ntaken  into consideration in the context of considering\t the\norder of detention in the case of a detenu who is already in\njail. [273G]\nN. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu, JT<\/a> (1989) 3 SCR\n270\n478;  Dharmendra  Sugan\t Chand Chelwat v.  Union  of  India,\n[1990] 1 SCC 746; Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal  Union of India, JT\n(1990)\t2 SCC 62; Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P.,  JT<\/a>\n(1988)\t1  SC 88 and Ramesh Yadav  v.  District\t Magistrate,\nEtah,<\/a> [1985] 4 SCC 232, referred to.\n    (6)\t A perusal of the orders of the High Court  quashing\nthe  detention\torders of Rai Chand Shah and  Jai  Lal\tVora\nshows  that  the basis for the detention orders\t were  their\nconfessional  statements. The High Court in this regard\t had\nobserved  that\tthe  confessional  statement  of  Rai  Chand\nShah--which  also  formed  integral and vital  part  of\t the\ngrounds\t of  detention\tof Jai Lal  Vora--being\t product  of\nthreats and injuries sustained by him and further his  medi-\ncal  report having been placed in truncated form before\t the\ndetaining authority, their detention became invalid. But, so\nfar  as\t the case of the present detenu\t is  concerned,\t his\ndetention was based on entirely distinct and separate  mate-\nrials  including his own confessional statements. The  basis\nof  the\t grounds of detention of the present detenu  is\t not\nrounded on the truncated form of medical report of  injuries\nsustained by Rai Chand Shah. Thus the present detenu  cannot\ntake  advantage of any orders passed by the High  Court\t de-\nclaring detention orders of Rai Chand Shah and Jai Lal\tVora\nas illegal. [278A-E]\n    (7) So far as the provision of Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 3 of\nthe  Act  is  concerned, it clearly provides  that  for\t the\npurposes  of clause (5) of Art. 22 of the Constitution,\t the\ncommunication to a person detained in pursuance of a  deten-\ntion  order of the grounds on which the order has been\tmade\nshah  be  made as soon as may he after\tthe  detention,\t but\nordinarily  not\t later than five days,\tand  in\t exceptional\ncircumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not\nlater  than fifteen days, from the date of  detention.\tThis\nprovision thus relates to the communication 01' the  grounds\nof detention. [279B-C]\n    (8)\t The  principle\t of five days and  fifteen  days  as\nprovided in Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act relating\nto  communication of grounds of detention cannot be  applied\nin  respect  of declaration issued under Sec. 10(1)  of\t the\nAct. [280F]\n    (9)\t There is no force in the contention that there\t was\nan  inordinate\tdelay  in  considering\tthe  representations\nsubmitted  by the detenu. The High Court has given  adequate\nand  detailed  reasons in holding that the  delay  has\tbeen\nexplained by the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.\n[281A-B]\n271\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave  Petition
\n(Criminal) No. 2531 of 1989.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment and Order dated 29.9.  1989  of\t the
\nBombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 87 of 1989.
\nU.R. Lalit and Mukul Mudgal for the Petitioner.
\n    Ashok H. Desai, Solicitor General, Ashok Srivastava\t and
\nMs. Sushma Suri for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    KASLIWAL,  J-  This special leave Petition\tis  directed
\nagainst\t the  Judgment of the Bombay High Court\t dated\t29th
\nSeptember, 1989 dismissing Criminal Writ Petition No. 87  of
\n1989.\n<\/p>\n
    Syed  Ali Raza Shafiq Mohammed was detained by an  order
\nof detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention  of
\nIllicit\t Traffic  in Narcotic Drugs  and  Psychotropic\tSub-
\nstances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated
\n19.12.88  by the Secretary (II) to the Government  of  Maha-
\nrashtra,  Home\tDepartment.  The  detention  order  and\t the
\ngrounds of detention were given to the detenu on 20th Decem-
\nber,  1988. It may be mentioned that on 19.12.88 the  detenu
\nwas already in jail as his bail application had been reject-
\ned. The wife of the detenu filed a writ petition before\t the
\nBombay\tHigh Court challenging the detention of her  husband
\nSyed  Ali  Raza Shafiq Mohammed. The Division Bench  of\t the
\nHigh  Court dismissed the writ petition by order dated\t29th
\nSeptember,  1989. The wife of the detenu has now  filed\t the
\npresent\t Special Leave Petition aggrieved against the  Judg-
\nment  of  the  Bombay High Court. Learned  counsel  for\t the
\npetitioner raised the following submissions before us:\n<\/p>\n
    (1) There were no prospects of the detenu being enlarged
\non bail as he was involved in a case under the Act where the
\noffence\t was punishable with minimum sentence of ten  years.
\nThe  bail  application\tfiled on behalf of  the\t detenu\t was
\nrejected  by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the detenu\t had
\nnot  filed any application for bail either in  the  Sessions
\nCourt or in the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
    (2) That detention orders of Rai Chand Shah and Jai\t Lal
\nVora had already been struck down by the High Court on the
\n272<\/span>
\nground\tthat  the medical report in respect  of\t the  injury
\nsustained  by Rai Chand Shah was placed in a truncated\tform
\nbefore\tthe detaining authority. The detention order of\t the
\npresent\t detenu also suffers from the same vice and as\tsuch
\nhis order of detention should also be set aside.
\n   (3)\tThat a declaration was issued under Sec. 10  (1)  of
\nthe  Act on 20th January, 1989 and the said declaration\t was
\nserved on the detenu after an unexplained delay of 21 days.
\n   (4)\tThe  detenu submitted a\t representation\t on  31.1.89
\nwhich was jointly addressed to the Government of Maharashtra
\nand  the Government of India and the Hon’ble Advisory  Board
\nfor revocation of the impugned order of detention. The State
\nGovernment  rejected the representation by its\treply  dated
\n21.2.89\t and  the  Central Government  by  its\treply  dated
\n3.3.89.\t Thus there was an inordinate and unexplained  delay
\nin  considering the said representations of the\t detenu\t and
\nthis  violated the right of the detenu under Art.  22(5)  of
\nthe Constitution of India. The order of detention is illegal
\non this count also.\n<\/p>\n
    We shall deal with the above contentions seriatem.\tWith
\nregard\tto  the\t first contention it was  submitted  by\t the
\nlearned\t counsel that the detenu was already in custody\t and
\nhis bail application had also been rejected and there was no
\nlikelihood  of the detenu being released on bail in  respect
\nof  the\t alleged  offence under the Act\t where\tthe  minimum
\nsentence  of  imprisonment was ten years. It  was  submitted
\nthat  the  mere possibility of his release on bail  was\t not
\nenough for preventive detention unless there was material to
\njustify the apprehension that the detention would be  neces-
\nsary in order to prevent him from engaging in illicit  traf-
\nfic  in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, in\tcase
\nof  his\t release on bail. A mere possibility of\t release  on
\nbail  and a bald statement that the detenu would repeat\t his
\ncriminal activities was alone not sufficient to sustain\t the
\norder  of detention. It was further contended that  the\t de-
\ntaining\t authority did not apply its mind to this aspect  of
\nthe  matter, that the detenu was already in custody and\t his
\nbail application having been rejected there was no possibil-
\nity of his being released on bail in a serious offence under
\nthe  Act.  Reliance in support of the above  contention\t was
\nplaced on recent decisions of this Court in N. Meera Rani v.
\nGovernment  of\tTamil Nadu & Anr., JT<\/a> 1989 (3)\tSC  478\t and
\nDharmendra  Sugan Chand Chelwat. v. Union of India  &  Ors.,
\n[1990] 1 SCC 746.\n<\/p>\n
273<\/span><\/p>\n
    On\tthe other hand Learned,Solicitor  General  contended
\nthat it would depend on the facts and circumstances of\teach
\ncase  whether  a detention order is to be passed or  not  in
\ncase  of  a person who was already in custody. An  order  of
\ndetention can be validly passed against a person in  custody
\nwhere  the  detaining authority was already  aware  of\tsuch
\nfacts  and it is satisfied that the detenu is likely  to  be
\nreleased  from\tcustody in the near  future.  The  detaining
\nauthority can take into account the nature of the antecedent
\nactivities  of the detenu in order to arrive to the  conclu-
\nsion that it is likely mat after his release from custody he
\n‘would\tindulge in criminal activities and it was  necessary
\nto detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in\tsuch
\nactivities in the present case there was complete  awareness
\nin  the\t mind of the detaining authority  about\t the  detenu
\nbeing  in custody and that if he is released on bail  he  is
\nlikely to indulge in the criminal activities. The  detaining
\nauthority was not only aware that the detenu was in jail but
\nalso  noted the circumstances on the basis of which  he\t was
\nsatisfied that the detenu was likely to come out on bail and
\ncontinue  to engage himself in the criminal  activities.  It
\nwas submitted that the High Court has considered this aspect
\nof the case and has given detailed reasons for upholding the
\norder  of detention and there is no ground or  justification
\nfor interfering in the order of the High Court. Reliance  in
\nsupport of the above contention was placed on San jeer Kumar
\nAggarwal v. Union of India & Ors., JT [1990] 2 SC 62.
\n    We have given our thoughtful consideration to the  argu-
\nments  advanced\t by Learned counsel for the parties  on\t the
\nabove point. The latest decision of this Court on the  above
\npoint  is Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India  &  Ors.,<\/a>
\n(supra) decided on 4th April, 1990 in which all the  earlier
\ncases  decided by this Court have been considered  including
\nthe-cases of N. Meera Rani v. Dharmendra Sugan Chand Chelwat
\n(supra)\t on  which reliance has been placed by\tthe  Learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner. It was observed in Sanjeev Kumar
\nAggarwal’s  case that no decision of this court has gone  to
\nthe extent of holding that no order of detention can validly
\nbe  passed  against a person in custody\t under\tany  circum-
\nstances. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of each case
\nhave  to be taken into consideration in the context of\tcon-
\nsidering the order of detention in the case of a detenu\t who
\nis already in jail. The counsel for the detenu in the  above
\ncase  strongly\trelied on Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v.  State  of
\nU.P. & Ors., JT<\/a> [1988] 1 SC 88 and Ramesh Yadav v.  District
\nMagistrate, Etah & Ors.,<\/a> [1985] 4 SCC 232 and contended that
\nthe  bail  application could be opposed if moved or  if\t en-
\nlarged\tthe same can be questioned in a higher court and  on
\nthat ground the detention order should be held to be
\n274<\/span>
\ninvalid. The Court negatived the above contention by observ-
\ning  that  in N. Meera Rani’s case a Bench of  three  Judges
\nnoted the above observations in Smt. Shashi Aggarwal’s\tcase
\nand Ramesh Yadav’s case and it was said that they were\tmade
\non  the facts of those particular cases. The  Court  further
\nheld  in the above case that on the material relied upon  by
\nthe detaining authority it could not be said that there\t was
\nno  awareness in the mind of the detaining  authority  about
\nthe  detenu being in custody and that if he is\treleased  on
\nbail he is likely to indulge in the prejudicial activities.
\n    If we examine the facts of the case before us as  stated
\nin  the grounds of detention it would be clear that  on\t the
\nbasis  of  specific information officers  of  the  Narcotics
\nControl Bureau, Bombay searched room No. G-2, Purab  Paschim
\nApartments, Gilbert Hill Road, Munshi Nagar, Andheri (West),
\nBombay-58 and recovered 56 Kgs. 650 gms. of Heroin (33\tKgs.
\n150 gms. white and 23 kgs. 500 gms. brown) and 4000  Mandrax
\nTablets (Methaeualone) totally valued at Rs. 1, 13,42000  on
\n21.10.88.\n<\/p>\n
    One Mr. Syed Asgar Ali was found in the room. During the
\ncourse of the search another person named Abdul Sattar Abdul
\nSamad  came on Motorcycle No. BLC 7768 Make Hero  Honda\t and
\nentered into the premises. Thereafter, two more persons came
\ninto  the premises who gave their names as Ali\tRaza  Shafiq
\nMohamed\t (detenu in the present case) and Thakur Singh.\t The
\nOfficers  also searched and seized a Bajaj Scooter MAQ\t169,
\nthe Motorcycle No. BLC 7768 and Fiat Car No. MMH 4348  which
\nwere  parked in the compound of the said society.  According
\nto  the present detenu the said three vehicles belonging  to
\nhim were used for transportation of Narcotic Drugs.
\n    Telephone  No. 6288769 was found installed in the  prem-
\nises.  It  was subscribed by one Shirish Parikh K.  18\tAzad
\nNagar  Society,\t Juhu  Scheme, Road No.\t 7,  Bombay-56.\t The
\ndetenu\tdisclosed  that he was living in Flat  No.  15,\t 4th
\nFloor,\tChandra\t Co-op. Housing Society\t Ltd.  Dawood  Baug,
\nAndheri, Bombay-58, which was also searched on 21.10.88\t but
\nnothing\t incriminating was found in the flat. Telephone\t No.
\n6284105\t was found installed there, which is  subscribed  by
\nthe detenu. The detenu also disclosed that he was having two
\nshops (i) M\/s Ali Decorators, G-I, Parag Niketan, 10th Road,
\nJuhu, Bombay400 049 (ii) M\/s Ali Decorators, Shop No. 9,  A-
\nWing,  Twin  Tower,  Lokhandwala  Complex,  Andheri  (West),
\nBombay-58  both of which were searched on 21.10.88 and\tsome
\ndocuments  were\t seized from the former\t shop.\tNothing\t was
\nseized from the 2nd shop.\n<\/p>\n
275<\/span><\/p>\n
    The statements of the detenu were recorded on  21.10.88,
\n22.10.88 and 7.11.88 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
\nWith regard to the statement given by the detenu on 21.10.88
\nit was mentioned as under in the grounds of detention.
\n“In  your statement of 21.10.88 you inter-alia, stated\tthat
\nyou have a business of Video Libraries and Marriage  decora-
\ntions;\tthat  you own the property  and\t vehicles  mentioned
\nabove;\tthat you were initiated into drug  trafficking\tsome
\ntime  in 1984 by one Anwar, owner of Anwar Star Petrol\tPump
\nCrawford Market, that in the beginning you were employed  as
\na delivery boy on a compensation of Rs.30 per day; that\t you
\nused  to deliver Heroin to customers on the road side;\tthat
\nafter sometime you started procuring Heroin from Pathans and
\nrepacking  it in small packets and you used to store  it  in
\npublic toilets with the help of Municipal Sweepers and\tsell
\nthe  same:  that you used to buy heroin for  Rs.  16,000  to
\n20,000\tand sell it for RS. 18,000 to 25,000 per  K.g.\tthat
\nyou were making a profit of Rs.4,000 to 5,000 that your main
\nselling\t points\t were Colaba and Nariman Point;\t that  there
\nwere  a number of brokers hovering around the  above  places
\nwho contact the customers; that you gave samples to  brokers
\nwho  showed  them  to the customers; that if  a\t sample\t was
\napproved  and the price agreeable, then you used to ask\t the
\npurchaser  to meet you at some point in Juhu or\t Andheri  or
\nsome  other  places, that you used to pick up  the  required
\nquantity  of Heroin and deliver it to the customer and\tcol-
\nlect  the money; that initially you were storing the  Heroin
\nin  your flat and later on you used to store it in the\tsaid
\nroom  No.  G\/2, Purab Aur Paschim Apartments,  Gilbert\tHill
\nRoad,  Andheri (W), Bombay-58. As regards the source of\t the
\nHeroin\tand Mandrax tablets you stated that you acquired  29
\nkgs.  of white Hereoin in instalment from one Mangal  Pandey
\nof Banaras and the remaining white hereoin from one Raichand
\nChandmal  Shah, that 25 kgs. of Brown Heroin  was  purchased
\nfrom  one  Asgar of Phulgalli, Bhendi Bazar  who  has  since
\ndied;  that you did not know the address of  Mangal  Pandey,
\nthat you purchased the Heroin on credit; that over the\tlast
\nabout 31\/2 years you must have sold 300 kgs. of Heroin\tthat
\nall  the movable and immovable property acquired by you\t has
\nbeen purchased from the profits from drug trafficking;\tthat
\nyour income from legal business
\n276<\/span>
\nof  Video  library  and decoration  is\tabout  Rs.2,000\t per
\nmonth.”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t statement recorded on 22.10.88 as mentioned in\t the
\ngrounds of detention is reproduced as under:
\n“In your next statement of 22.10.88 you stated that  because
\nyou had to make 3-4 trips to your native place and that\t was
\nthe  reason  why such a large quantity of heroin  was  lying
\nwith  you;  that you were keeping one car  and\ttwo  wheeler
\nbecause\t you required them for transporting\/selling of\tMan-
\ndrax  tablets and it is advisable to use different  vehicles
\nin  this business; you further stated that Abdul Sattar\t and
\nyour  brother  Syed  Asghar Ali were not  involved  in\tthis
\nbusiness and that they did not know that you are dealing  in
\nheroin;\t they  were  present in the room  where\t heroin\t was
\nseized\ton 21.10.88; because you had sent them to  supervise
\nmasonry work”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t detaining  authority  further\tmade  the  following
\nobservations in the grounds of detention:\n<\/p>\n
“You  were  arrested  on 22.10.88 and  produced\t before\t the
\nAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Holiday Court)  on
\n23.10.88  who remanded you to Judicial Custody till  4.11.88
\nwhich was extended from time to time. You also filed  appli-
\ncation for bail on 21.11.88 which was rejected by the  AddI.
\nChief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Bombay.
\n    It may be further important. to note that in the grounds
\nof  detention  the detaining authority had  noted  that\t the
\nother  detenus Shri Raichand Shah and Sh.  Jailal  Keshavlal
\nVora were already released on bail on 18.11.88 on furnishing
\na  bail\t for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 each in\tcash.  After
\ntaking\tnote  of all the above circumstances  the  detaining
\nauthority made the following observations in respect of\t the
\ndetenu having a likelihood of being released on bail:
\n“It  is clear that there is a ring of traffickers in  heroin
\nand Mandrax tablets in Bombay and you are a part of the ring
\nand  you have been habitually engaging yourself\t in  posses-
\nsion, sale, purchase, transportation and storage of narcotic
\ndrugs and Psychotropic substances. 1 am aware that you
\n277<\/span>
\nare still in judicial custody but I am also aware that under
\nthe normal law of the land you may be granted bail and be in
\na position to continue to pursue your nefarious activities.
\n\t I,  therefore, consider it necessary to invoke\t the
\nlaw of preventive detention and detain you under the PIINDPS
\nAct, 1988 to prevent you from indulging in such\t prejudicial
\nactivities in future.”\n<\/p>\n
    Thus the material placed before the detaining  authority
\nand the facts mentioned in the grounds of detention  clearly
\ngo to show that the detaining authority was fully aware that
\nthe  bail application filed by the detenu had been  rejected
\nby  the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 8th  Court,
\nBombay-\t The detaining authority was also conscious  of\t the
\nfact  that the two other detenus who were arrested  and\t de-
\ntained\tin the same raid had already been released on  bail.
\nThe antecedents of the detenu which were clear from his\t own
\nstatement  went to show that he was initiated in drug  traf-
\nficking in 1984 and employed as a delivery boy on Rs.30\t per
\nday  Within  a short span of four years the  detenu  himself
\nstarted\t buying and selling Narcotic Drugs and amassed\thuge
\nmovable\t and immovable properties in Bombay. In the  present
\nraid itself heroin and Mandrax tablets worth Rs. 1, 13,42000
\nwere seized from the ownership and possession of the detenu.
\nNot only that the detenu was using three vehicles for trans-
\nportation  of these Narcotic drugs. The detaining  authority
\nafter  taking into consideration the above materials  placed
\nbefore him, arrived to the conclusion that the detenu  being
\nin judicial custody may under the normal law of the land  be
\ngranted bail and be in a position to continue to pursue\t his
\nnefarious  activities.\tThe  detaining\tauthority  in  these
\ncircumstances  considered it necessary to invoke the law  of
\npreventive  detention  under the Act to prevent\t the  detenu
\nfrom  indulging in his prejudicial activities in future.  In
\nthese  circumstances  it cannot be said that  the  order  of
\ndetention was illegal on the ground that it was passed while
\nthe detenu was already in custody
\n     It was next contended on behalf of the petitioner\tthat
\nthe detention orders of Rai Chand Chandmal Shah and Jai\t lal
\nKeshavlal  Vora\t had already been struck down  by  the\tHigh
\nCourt  on the ground that the medical report in\t respect  of
\nthe  injury  sustained\tby Rai Chand Shah was  placed  in  a
\ntruncated  form before the detaining authority. It was\tthus
\nargued\tthat the detention order of the present detenu\talso
\nsuffers\t from the same vice and as such his order of  deten-
\ntion should also be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
278<\/span><\/p>\n
    We see no force in this’ contention. We have perused the
\norders\tof the High Court quashing the detention  orders  of
\nRai Chand Shah and Jai Lal Vora. A perusal of the orders  of
\nthe High Court shows that the basis for the detention orders
\nof  Rai Chand Shah and Jai Lal Vora were their\tconfessional
\nstatements.  It was alleged before the High Court  that\t Rai
\nChand Shah was given a severe beating on account of which he
\nsustained  serious injuries and as such his alleged  confes-
\nsional\tstatement  should  not have been made  a  ground  of
\ndetention.  The High Court in this regard observed that\t the
\nconfessional  statement of Rai Chand Shah being\t product  of
\nthreats and injuries sustained by him and his medical report
\nhaving\tbeen placed in truncated form before  the  detaining
\nauthority,  the certificate showing injuries in\t detail\t not
\nhaving\tbeen  placed before the detaining authority  by\t the
\nsponsoring  authority, the detention became invalid. Now  so
\nfar  as Jai Lal Keshav Lal Vora is concerned the High  Court
\ntook  the view that the statements of Rai Chand Shah  formed
\nintegral  and vital part of the grounds of detention of\t Jai
\nLal Vora and if such important and vital part of the materi-
\nal  is\tobliterated and excluded it is not possible  to\t say
\nthat  the remaining material is ample and more\tthan  suffi-
\ncient  to  justify  the detention of Jai Lal  K.  Vora.\t The
\ndetention  order of Jai Lal K. Vora was also declared  ille-
\ngal.  Now so far as the case of the present detenu Syed\t Ali
\nRaza  Shafiq Mohd. is concerned as already  mentioned  above
\nhis  detention\tis based on entirely distinct  and  separate
\nmaterials  including  his own confessional  statements.\t The
\nbasis  of the grounds of detention of the present detenu  is
\nnot  rounded  on  the truncated form of\t medical  report  of
\ninjuries sustained by Rai Chand Shah. At the most it can  be
\nconsidered  as\ta  supplementary kind of  material  for\t the
\ndetention  order  of the present detenu.  Thus\tthe  present
\ndetenu\tcannot\ttake advantage of any orders passed  by\t the
\nHigh Court declaring the detention orders of Rai Chand\tShah
\nand Jai Lal K. Vora as illegal.\n<\/p>\n
    It\twas next contended on behalf of the petitioner\tthat
\nthough a declaration was issued under Sec. 10(1) of the\t Act
\non 20th January, 1989 but the same was served on the  detenu
\non  10.2.89  after an unexplained delay of 21 days.  It\t was
\nvehemently contended on behalf of the detenu that the detenu
\nought  to have been served with the declaration as  soon  as
\nmay  be after the issue of such declaration, but  ordinarily
\nnot  later  than 5 days and in case it was not\tdone  within
\nfive days then reasons ought to have been recorded in  writ-
\ning  for explaining the delay and that also could  not\thave
\nbeen later than 15 days in any case. Learned Counsel in this
\nregard\tsubmitted  that under clause (5) of Art. 22  of\t the
\nConstitution  a right is guaranteed to the detenu to  afford
\nan  earliest opportunity of making a representation  against
\nthe order of
\n279<\/span>
\ndetention.  It\twas  contended that when the  liberty  of  a
\ncitizen is taken away he ought to be afforded an opportunity
\nof making representation at the earliest and the  provisions
\ncontained  in  Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 3 of the Act  should  in
\nterms  also apply in the case of communicating the  declara-
\ntion issued under Sec. 10(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tsee no force in the above contention. So far as\t the
\nprovision of Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 3 of the Act is  concerned
\nit  clearly provides that for the purposes of clause (5)  of
\nArt.  22 of the Constitution, the communication to a  person
\ndetained in persuance of a detention order of the grounds on
\nwhich the order has been made shah be made as soon as may be
\nafter  the  detention, but ordinarily not  later  than\tfive
\ndays, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be
\nrecorded  in writing, not later than fifteen days, from\t the
\ndate of detention. This provision thus relates to the commu-
\nnication of the grounds of detention. In the case before  us
\nthe  grounds  of detention were admittedly  communicated  on
\n20th  December,\t 1988,\twhile the  detention  order  was  of
\n19.12.88- Thus there is full compliance of the above  provi-
\nsion and the order of detention cannot be challenged on this
\nground. Now so far as the guarantee under Clause (5) of Art.
\n22  of the Constitution is concerned there can be no  manner
\nof  doubt that the person detained under any law of  preven-
\ntive detention ought to be communicated the grounds on which
\nthe  order  has been made so as to afford him  the  earliest
\nopportunity  of making a representation against\t the  order.
\nThe detenu was served with the grounds of detention on\t20th
\nDecember, 1988 and the detenu had full and ample opportunity
\nto  make a representation against the detention order.\tSub-
\nSec. (1) of Sec. 10 of the Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any  person
\n(including  a  foreigner)  in respect of whom  an  order  of
\ndetention is made under this Act at any time before the 31st
\nday  of\t July, 1990, may be detained without  obtaining,  in
\naccordance  with the provisions of sub-clause (a) of  clause
\n(4) of Art. 22 of the Constitution, the opinion of an  Advi-
\nsory  Board  for a period longer than three months  but\t not
\nexceeding  six months from the date of his detention,  where
\nthe  order  of detention has been made against\tsuch  person
\nwith  a\t view  to preventing him from  engaging\t in  illicit
\ntraffic\t in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,\t and
\nthe Central Government or any officer of the Central Govern-
\nment, not below the rank of an Additional Secretary to\tthat
\nGovernment, specially empowered for the
\n280<\/span>
\npurposes  of  this  section by\tthat  Government,  specially
\nempowered  for the purposes of this section by that  Govern-
\nment, is satisfied that such person engages or is likely  to
\nengage in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic
\nsubstances  into, out of, through or within any area  highly
\nvulnerable  to such illicit traffic and makes a\t declaration
\nto  that effect within five weeks of the detention  of\tsuch
\nperson.”\n<\/p>\n
    In the counter affidavit filed before this Court it\t has
\nbeen stated in para (L) as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Regarding  the declaration, it may be stated that the\tsame
\nwas  dispatched by the Ministry of Finance on  20.1.1989  to
\nthe   Home  Secretary,\tGovernment  of Maharashtra,  Bombay,
\nMaharashtra Government forwarded it to NCB, Bombay which was
\nreceived in the NCS office on 1.2.89 from the State  Govern-
\nment.  It was then sent for translation, 4th and 5th  Febru-
\nary, being holidays (being Saturday and Sunday) the declara-
\ntion  was dispatched on 6.2.89. It was received by the\tJail
\nauthorities on 10.2.1989 and served on the detenu same day.”
\nThus  the declaration had been made in this case on  20.1.89
\nby  the Ministry of Finance within the statutory  period  of
\nfive weeks of the detention and the period taken in  serving
\nthe  same  on the detenu on 10.2.89  has  been\tsufficiently
\nexplained.  The detenu was lodged in Central  Prison  Bombay
\nand  the Advisory Board had fixed a date on 23.2.89  and  as
\nsuch  the  detenu  had ample opportunity  to  challenge\t the
\ndeclaration.  The  High\t Court has also gone  in  detail  in
\ndealing\t with this aspect of the matter, and we\t agree\twith
\nthe  finding  recorded by the High Court. The  principle  of
\nfive days and fifteen days as provided in Sub-Section (3) of
\nSection 3 relating to communication of grounds of  detention
\ncannot\tbe  applied in respect of declaration  issued  under
\nSec.  10(1)  of the Act. In the facts and  circumstances  of
\nthis  case  we are fully satisfied that the detenu  has\t not
\nbeen  denied any opportunity of making any effective  repre-
\nsentation against the declaration issued under Sec. 10(1) of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
    The last submission made on behalf of the detenu is that
\nthe detenu had submitted a representation on 31.1.89 jointly
\naddressed  to the Government of Maharashtra, the  Government
\nof  India and the Advisory Board. The State  Government\t re-
\njected the representation
\n281<\/span>
\nby its reply dated 21.2.89 and the Central Government by its
\nreply dated 3.3.89. It was thus contended that there was  an
\ninordinate  and\t unexplained delay in considering  the\tsaid
\nrepresentations\t and this is violative of the right  of\t the
\ndetenu conferred under Clause (5) of Art. 22 of the  Consti-
\ntution-\t The  point should not detain us any  longer  as  we
\nfully agree with the finding of the High Court, recorded  in
\nthis regard. The High Court has given adequate and  detailed
\nreasons in holding that the delay has been explained by\t the
\ncounter affidavit filed by the respondents. Thus we find  no
\nforce in this ground of the detenu that his  representations
\nwere disposed of after an inordinate and unexplained delay.
\n   As a result of the above discussion, we find no force  in
\nthis
\npetition and it is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tPetition dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.S.\n<\/p>\n
282<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Smt. Azra Fatima vs Union Of India And Others on 12 July, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 1763, 1990 SCR (3) 268 Author: N Kasliwal Bench: Kasliwal, N.M. (J) PETITIONER: SMT. AZRA FATIMA Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT12\/07\/1990 BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-236970","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Azra Fatima vs Union Of India And Others on 12 July, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Azra Fatima vs Union Of India And Others on 12 July, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1990-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-30T12:00:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Azra Fatima vs Union Of India And Others on 12 July, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-30T12:00:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990\"},\"wordCount\":4367,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990\",\"name\":\"Smt. Azra Fatima vs Union Of India And Others on 12 July, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-30T12:00:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Azra Fatima vs Union Of India And Others on 12 July, 1990\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt. Azra Fatima vs Union Of India And Others on 12 July, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Azra Fatima vs Union Of India And Others on 12 July, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-30T12:00:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Azra Fatima vs Union Of India And Others on 12 July, 1990","datePublished":"1990-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-30T12:00:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990"},"wordCount":4367,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990","name":"Smt. Azra Fatima vs Union Of India And Others on 12 July, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-30T12:00:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-azra-fatima-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-july-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Azra Fatima vs Union Of India And Others on 12 July, 1990"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236970","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=236970"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236970\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236970"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=236970"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=236970"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}