{"id":91567,"date":"2007-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2"},"modified":"2017-09-13T08:49:06","modified_gmt":"2017-09-13T03:19:06","slug":"sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2","title":{"rendered":"Sayed Abul Ala vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sayed Abul Ala vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, H.S. Bedi<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  765 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nSAYED ABUL ALA\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/09\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. SINHA & H.S. BEDI\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765  OF 2003<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.Appellant herein was detained under the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
\nPsychotropic Substances Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’)  by an
\norder dated 15th February, 2000. The period of detention is over.  He, however,
\nquestioned the validity of the said order of detention before the High Court of
\nDelhi inter alia on the premise that unless the order of detention is set aside,
\na proceeding may be initiated against him under  Chapter VA of Narcotic Drugs
\nand Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Appellant was indisputably arrested by the officers of Narcotic Control
\nBureau (NCB) on 29.11.1999. He was remanded to NCB custody till 8.12.1999,
\nwhereafter when he was remanded to judicial custody.  Eighteen kilos and eight
\nhundred thirty grams of heroin was alleged to have been recovered from his
\npossession from a hotel room.  Another raid was conducted in House No.995,
\nsituate at  Kishanganj, Teliwara,  near Azad Market, Delhi on 29\/30th
\nNovember,1999.  In the search, which was conducted at the said place on 29\/30th
\nNovember, 1999, 32.305 kg. of brown powder kept in nineteen  transparent
\npolythene  bags kept inside three Safari suitcases, was said to have been
\nrecovered.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Appellant filed an application before the special judge that he may not be
\ntransferred to Delhi. The said plea was not accepted. The order of detention was
\nplaced before the Advisory Board for confirmation.  The  Advisory Board was to
\nhold its meeting on 22nd April,2000.  According to the appellant on the
\naforementioned date neither he nor his advocate Shri S.C. Puri could appear
\nbefore the  Advisory Board as he was being taken to Delhi from  Bengal, and his
\nadvocate  received the said communication from the Advisory Board only on 25th
\nApril,2000.  It is also not in dispute that upon recommendations of the
\nAdvisory Board, the order of detention was confirmed on 12.5.2000.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tAppellant made two representations praying for revocation of the order of
\ndetention.  The first representation was made on  14th March,2000 raising all
\nlegal questions.  The said representation was rejected.  He, however, filed
\nanother representation on 26th May,2000 inter alia on the premise that his
\nConstitutional right to appear before the  Advisory Board having been  denied to
\nhim,  he was entitled to revocation of the order of detention dated 15th
\nFebruary,2000.  The said representation was also rejected.  Aggrieved, he filed
\na writ petition before the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tBefore the High Court three contentions were raised by the appellant.
\nFirstly, his Constitutional right to be represented before the  Advisory Board
\nhaving been denied to him and having regard to the second representation made by
\nhim, the appropriate Government was under a constitutional obligation to
\nreconstitute another  Advisory Board so as to enable him to make proper
\nrepresentation before it.  It was contended that the purported letter dated
\n7.4.2000 issued by the appropriate Government to him was an ante-dated one and
\nin any event his advocate having received the same only on 25th April,2000,
\ni.e., after the Advisory Board held its meeting on 22nd April,2000, the same was
\nillegal and thus  it was obligatory on the part of the appropriate Government to
\nreconstitute the  Advisory Board.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tSecondly, his representation dated 26th May,2000 being based on fresh
\nfacts and new grounds, the same should have been disposed of at an early date
\nbut delay of 40 days having occurred, the order of detention should be set
\naside.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThirdly, although the appellant was in judicial custody at the relevant
\npoint of time, the detaining authority had mechanically passed the order of
\ndetention without taking into consideration the relevant fact, namely, he was
\nalleged to have committed serious offences under the said Act and in view of
\nSection 37 thereof, it was unlikely that he would have been released on bail.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tAll the contentions  having been rejected by the High Court by reason of
\nimpugned judgment,  the appellant has preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe contention of the respondents, on the other hand, is that a
\ndistinction must be made between the  cases where the order of detention is void
\nab initio and a case where further detention becomes vitiated by reason of non-
\ncompliance of one or the other procedural safeguards to which the detenu would
\nbe entitled in terms of Article 22(5) of the Constitution  of India.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tFrom the records it appears that the contention of the appellant that the
\ncommunication dated 7th April,2000 was ante-dated and his advocate Shri S.C.
\nPuri did not receive the said communication as a result whereof the appellant is
\nsaid to have been deprived of an opportunity of being represented before the
\nAdvisory Board is not  correct.  Our attention in this regard has been drawn to
\na letter dated 7.4.2000 addressed by the appellant  to his counsel to Shri S.C.
\nPuri wherein it was stated that not only he had received the said communication
\ndated 7.4.2000 on the said date itself but  had advised his counsel to attend
\nthe said meeting of the  Advisory Board which was to be held on 22.4.2000 at
\n11.00 a.m. on his behalf as he himself was unable to attend  because of his
\nsickness.  Appellant was, therefore, aware of the date of meeting of the
\nAdvisory Board much in advance.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tApart from that,  one Mangal Dass who was an Intelligence Officer, NCB,
\nDelhi in an affidavit categorically stated that he had himself contacted the
\nadvocate of the appellant Shri S.C. Puri  over telephone on 18.4.2000 and
\ninformed him about the contents of the aforementioned letter dated 7.4.2000. As
\nthe said contention of the appellant that he had cxbeen deprived of the
\nconstitutional right to be represented before the  Advisory Board is not based
\non factual foundation, we are of the opinion that the said contention has no
\nmerit and must be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
11.   Even for the sake of the argument, if it be assumed that there was some
\ndelay in considering his representation as would appear from the discussions
\nmade hereinafter the same would not vitiate the original order of detention.
\nBefore embarking however, on the said question, we may notice that in the reply
\naffidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, affirmed by one Shri J.L. Soni,
\nDeputy Secretary of the Government of India it was stated that there was 10
\ndays’ delay on the part of the jail authorities to forward the said
\nrepresentation; 22 days had been taken in calling the comments from the
\nsponsoring authority and about 8 days had been taken in communication of the
\nsaid order.  Even if there had been some delay on the part of the respondents to
\nconsider the said representation of the appellant by the appropriate authority,
\nwe are of the opinion that the same would not be sufficient for the purpose of
\ndisposal of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tMr. B.B. Singh, in our opinion, is right in his contention that  by reason
\nthereof only further detention of the appellant became illegal and thus, the
\nsame did not vitiate the order of detention itself.  The distinction between an
\norder of detention which is void ab initio by reason of non-application of  mind
\non the part of the detaining authority or  other reason is clearly distinct and
\ndifferent from the case where only further detention becomes illegal.  This
\nquestion had been considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Meena
\nJayendra Thakur Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in J.T. 1999(7)SCC 336
\nwherein it was held:\n<\/p>\n
?8. There cannot be any dispute that the right  to make a representation of a
\ndetenu is the most valuable right conferred upon him under Article 22 of the
\nConstitution and if there has been any infraction of such right then certainly
\nthe detenu is entitled to be released.  The question, therefore, arises as to
\nwhether when a declaration is made under Section 9(i) of the Act which in turn
\nextends the period of detention without being confirmed whether the officer
\nissuing the declaration under Section 9(i) is also required to inform the detenu
\nthat he has a right to make a representation to him.  Under the constitutional
\nscheme engrafted in Article 22, no law providing for preventing detention can
\nauthorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless
\nthe Advisory Board reports before expiration of the said period of three months
\nthat there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for such detention.  When an
\nauthority issues a declaration under Section 9(i) of the Act, the said authority
\nhas the necessary powers to revoke the declaration on a representation being
\nmade by the detenu against such declaration.  Consequently, if the detenu is not
\nintimated of his right to make a representation to the authority issuing the
\ndeclaration under Section 9(i) then certainly his valuable constitutional right
\ngets infringed and the two decisions of the Full Bench relied upon by Mr. Kotwal
\nfully support this contention.  Mr. N.N. Goswami, learned senior counsel
\nappearing for the Union of India fairly concedes this position.?\n<\/p>\n
13.\tThe said decision has been followed by this Court recently in Union of
\nIndia & Anr. Vs. V. Harish Kumar<\/a> reported in J.T. 2007 (10) SC 254, holding:
\n\t?In our considered opinion the decision of this Court in Meena Jayendra
\nThakur is an authority for the proposition that an order of detention passed by
\nthe detaining authority on the basis of material made available  for its
\nconsideration and its satisfaction does not get initiated because of a
\nsubsequent infraction  of the detenu’s right to make a representation and its
\ndisposal by the authorities.  We are unable to agree with the submissions of Dr.
\nSinghvi, learned senior counsel for the respondent.?\n<\/p>\n
14.\tIn the case of A.K. Roy Vs. Union of India 1982 (1) SCC 271, which was
\nrelied upon by the learned counsel,  this Court was examining the constitutional
\nvalidity of issuance of an Ordinance providing for detention and the
\nconstitutional validity of the National Security Act. Relying upon its earlier
\ndecision in Khduram Das Vs. State of W.B. 1975 (2) SCC 81 this Court  held that
\nit is  not open to anyone to contend that a law of preventive detention, which
\nfalls within Article 22, does not have to meet the requirement of Articles 14 or
\n19, and on the same analogy it must be held that Article 21 also would apply in
\ncase of a law of preventive detention.  The proposition laid down in the
\naforesaid decision of the Constitution Bench cannot be doubted, but in our view
\nthe said question does not arise for consideration in the case at hand.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tWe may now consider the principal contention raised by Mr. Harjinder
\nSingh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant.  In the impugned
\norder of detention it has been stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t?Even though prosecution proceedings under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
\nSubstances Act, 1985 Act,1985 have been initiated against Shri Sayed Abul Ala
\nand even though he continues to be in judicial custody,  I am satisfied that
\nthere is every likelihood of his being released on bail by the Court, and on
\nsuch release, he is likely to engage himself in illicit traffic in Narcotic
\ndrugs as in evident from his antecedent activities and material on record.  I am
\ntherefore  satisfied that there is compelling necessity to detain him under the
\nPrevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
\n1988 with a view to preventing him from engaging in such activities.?\n<\/p>\n
16.\tIt is no doubt true that in the order of detention the detaining authority
\nhad taken into consideration three factors; viz., (1) the antecedent of the
\nappellant; (2) he had made voluntary confession on 1.6.2000 but  refracted
\ntherefrom on 1.6.2000; and (3) he had filed an application for bail.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tMr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel submitted that once it is held that the
\nrelevant factors were considered, the same conferred jurisdiction on the
\ndetaining authority to take extraordinary procedure in passing the order of
\npreventive detention against the appellant, and when  such facts are found to
\nhave been existing,  this Court should not interfere therewith.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tAn application for bail is required to be filed and considered by the
\nappropriate Court in terms of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but
\nin cases involving the provisions of the NDPS Act, the detaining authority was
\nrequired to take into consideration the restrictions imposed on the power of the
\ncourt to grant bail having regard to the provisions of Section 37 thereof.
\n\tIt reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
?37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.–(1) Notwithstanding anything
\ncontained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974) —\n<\/p>\n
(a)  every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;\n<\/p>\n
(b)  no person accused of an offence\tpunishable for [offences under Section
\n19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial
\nquantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless —\n<\/p>\n
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given       an opportunity to oppose the
\n\tapplication for such release, and<\/p>\n
(ii)where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied
\nthat there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such
\noffence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.?\n<\/p>\n
19.\tThe statute, thus,  puts limitation on the jurisdiction of the court  in
\nthe matter of grant of bail.  They cannot be ignored by any Court of Law.
\nSeveral decisions of this Court and of  High Court operate in the field.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tProper application of mind on the part of the detaining authority must,
\ntherefore, be borne out from the order of detention. In cases where the detenu
\nis in custody,  the detaining authority not only should be aware of the said
\nfact but  there should be some material on record to justify that he  may be
\nreleased on bail having regard to the restriction imposed on the power of the
\nCourt as it may not arrive at the conclusion that there existed reasonable
\ngrounds for believing that he was not guilty of such offence and that the detenu
\ncould not indulge in similar activity, if  set  at  liberty.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   21.\t  The detaining authority furthermore is required to
\nborne in mind that there exists a distinction between the ?likelihood of his
\nmoving an application for bail?  and ?likelihood to be released on bail?.  While
\narriving at his subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu
\nbeing released on bail,  recording of the satisfaction on the part of the
\ndetaining authority that merely because  an application for grant of bail had
\nbeen filed,  would not be enough.  It would also not be sufficient compliance of
\nthe legal obligation  that the detaining authority had informed himself that the
\ndetenu has retracted from his earlier confession.\n<\/p>\n
21.\tSo far as the 2nd retraction of confession is concerned, the same is dated
\n1.6.2000, and thus the same  could not have been within the knowledge of the
\ndetention authority.  Refraction from confession by the detenu although may be
\none of the grounds for arriving at the conclusion with regard to the subjective
\nsatisfaction of the detaining authority, in our opinion, the detaining authority
\nshould have also informed himself about the implication of Section 37 of the
\nAct. If the detenu was involved in a large number of cases and the prosecution
\nwas aware of the same, it would invariably  be brought to the notice of the
\ncourt dealing with the application of bail filed by the detenu by the  public
\nprosecutor.  Further more, the order of the Court granting bail would be passed
\nonly when the court dealing therewith forms an opinion that there are reasonable
\ngrounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offences that there was no
\nlikelihood to commit any offence while on bail.\n<\/p>\n
22.\tIn Amritlal & Ors. vs. Union Govt. through Secy., Ministry of Finance &
\nOrs., (2001) 1 SCC 341, wherein this Court, following the decision in Binod
\nSingh Vs. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (1986 (4) SCC 416, held as under:\n<\/p>\n
6.?The requirement as noticed above in Binod Singh Case that there is
\n?likelihood of the petitioners being released on bail? however is not available
\nin the reasoning as provided by the officer concerned.  The reasoning available
\nis the ?likelihood of his moving an application for bail? which is different
\nfrom ?likelihood to be released on bail?. This reasoning, in our view, is not
\nsufficient compliance with the requirements as laid down.\n<\/p>\n
7.The emphasis however, in Binod Singh case that before passing the detention
\norder the authority concerned must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the
\npetitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on
\ncogent material.  Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail
\napplication moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.?\n<\/p>\n
23.\tThe said decision is of no assistance to the learned counsel for the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
24.\tYet again, in Union of India vs. Paul Manickam & Anr.<\/a> 2003 (8) SCC 342,
\nwhereupon Mr.B.B.Singh has placed strong reliance, noticing a large number of
\ndecisions, this Court held that:\n<\/p>\n
?But at the same time, a person?s greatest of human freedoms i.e. personal
\nliberty is deprived, and, therefore, the laws of preventive detention are
\nstrictly construed, and a meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguard,
\nhowever technical, is mandatory.  The compulsions of the primordial need to
\nmaintain order in society, without which enjoyment of all rights, including the
\nright of personal liberty would lose all their meanings, are the true
\njustifications for the laws of preventive detention.  This jurisdiction has been
\ndescribed as a ?jurisdiction of suspicion?, and the compulsions to preserve the
\nvalues of freedom of a democratic society and social order sometimes merit the
\ncurtailment of the individual liberty. (See Ayya Vs. State of U.P.) To lose our
\ncountry by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, said Thomas Jefferson,
\nwould be to lose the law, absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.  No law is
\nan end in itself and the curtailment of liberty for reasons of the State’s
\nsecurity and national economic discipline as a necessary evil has to be
\nadministered under strict constitutional restrictions.  No carte Blanche is
\ngiven to any organ of the State to be the sole arbiter in such matters.?\n<\/p>\n
25.\tNo doubt antecedents of the detenu would be a relevant factor but the same
\nby itself may not be sufficient to press and order of detention in as much as
\nthe principles which govern the field so as to enable the court to arrive at a
\ndecision that the order of detention can be validly passed despite the detenu
\nbeing in custody are:\n<\/p>\n
(1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually
\nin custody; (2) if he had a reason to believe on the basis of reliable material
\nplaced before him (a) that there is a real possibility of his being released on
\nbail, and (b) that on being released, he would in all probability indulge in
\nprejudicial activities; and (3) it is felt essential to detain him to prevent
\nhim from so doing.\n<\/p>\n
26.\tYet again, our attention has also been drawn to the decision of this Court
\nin Smt. Azra Fatima Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1991) 1 SCC 76 wherein a Bench of
\nthis Court while considering the validity of an order of detention under the
\nsaid Act had held that the likelihood of the detenu to be released on bail
\ntogether with other relevant factors namely his antecedents as well as his
\nlikelihood of involvement and in continuing to commit similar offences are to be
\nborne in mind.  But therein two of the co-detenus had already been released on
\nbail and thus, detaining authority could arise at his subjective satisfaction.
\nHowever, in this case,  the co-accused of the appellant had not been released on
\nbail and in that view of the matter the detaining authority was required to
\napply his mind on the material on record to arrive at his subjective
\nsatisfaction.\n<\/p>\n
27.\tIn Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR
\n1990 SC 1196, this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
?21.We are, however, unable to agree with the same.  In the grounds of detention
\nthe detaining authority has only mentioned the fact that the appellants has been
\nremanded to judicial custody till October 13, 1988.  The grounds of detention do
\nnot show that the detaining authority apprehended that the further remand would
\nnot be granted by the Magistrate on October 13, 1988, and the appellants would
\nbe released from custody on October 13, 1988.  Nor is there any material in the
\ngrounds of detention which may lend support to such an apprehension.  on the
\nother hand we find that the bail applications moved by the appellants had been
\nrejected by the Sessions Judge a few days prior to the passing of the order of
\ndetention on October 11, 1988.  The grounds of detention disclose that the
\nappellants were engaged in activities which are offences punishable with
\nimprisonment under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
\nSubstances Act, 1985.  It cannot, therefore, be said that there was a reasonable
\nprospect of the appellants not being further remanded to custody on October 13,
\n1988 and their being released from custody at the time when the order for
\npreventive detention of that appellant was passed on October 11, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
27.\tHaving regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
\nopinion that on this ground alone the order of detention passed against the
\npetitioner cannot be sustained.  It is set aside accordingly.
\n\tThe appeal is allowed\tand the impugned judgment is set aside.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sayed Abul Ala vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2007 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, H.S. Bedi CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 765 of 2003 PETITIONER: SAYED ABUL ALA RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/09\/2007 BENCH: S.B. SINHA & H.S. BEDI JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/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-91567","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSayed Abul Ala vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2007 - 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\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sayed Abul Ala vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-13T03:19:06+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sayed Abul Ala vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-13T03:19:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2\"},\"wordCount\":3570,\"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\\\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2\",\"name\":\"Sayed Abul Ala vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-13T03:19:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sayed Abul Ala vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Sayed Abul Ala vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2007 - 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\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sayed Abul Ala vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-13T03:19:06+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sayed Abul Ala vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-13T03:19:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2"},"wordCount":3570,"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\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2","name":"Sayed Abul Ala vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-13T03:19:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-abul-ala-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2007-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sayed Abul Ala vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2007"}]},{"@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\/91567","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=91567"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91567\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91567"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91567"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91567"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}