D.M. v. Kulbir Chand, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

ONOFF
Text Highlighter
Bookmark
PDF
Share
Report a problem

CITATION CODES

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

CASE NO.

Criminal Appeal No. 411 of 1987, decided on August 28, 1987

DISPOSITION

remanded

JUDGES

Justice B.C. Ray

Justice A.P. Sen

ACTS

No Acts

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Supreme Court Of India

D.M. v. Kulbir Chand

(Aug 28, 1987) Copy Cite

Case Information

CITATION CODES

citation codes

CASE NO.

Criminal Appeal No. 411 of 1987, decided on August 28, 1987

DISPOSITION

remanded

JUDGES

Justice B.C. Ray

Justice A.P. Sen

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ...

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

Special leave was granted and arguments were heard. The matter arises from a High Court decision that quashed an order of detention. The High Court’s basis for quashing was that detention orders in similar cases had earlier been revoked. The Supreme Court found this approach unacceptable and took up the appeal against the High Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and directed the High Court to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously, within four weeks from the date of the Supreme Court’s order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a High Court can quash an order of detention solely on the ground that detention orders in similar cases had earlier been revoked.
Whether failure to independently assess the specific facts of the case amounts to non-application of mind warranting appellate interference.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s decision reflected “complete non-application of mind.” While acknowledging that the High Court was entitled to reach its own conclusion on the facts, the Supreme Court emphasized that each case must be decided on its own facts. The High Court, therefore, erred in quashing the detention order merely because similar detention orders had been revoked in other cases.

The Court underscored a fundamental adjudicatory principle: similarity to other cases, without an independent evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, is not a legally sufficient basis to invalidate a detention order. Because the High Court failed to undertake this fact-specific analysis, its judgment could not stand. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed the High Court to consider and dispose of the underlying writ petition on its merits expeditiously, with a specific timeline of no later than four weeks from the date of the Supreme Court’s order.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal was allowed; the judgment and order of the High Court were set aside. The High Court was directed to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within four weeks from the date of the Supreme Court’s order.

Implications: The immediate effect is that the writ petition challenging the detention order must be reconsidered by the High Court on its own facts and merits, without relying solely on outcomes in similar cases. The opinion reiterates that each case must be decided on its own factual matrix. No broader implications or new precedent beyond this principle are discussed in the provided text.

Show full summary ...

D.M. v. Kulbir Chand

Order

1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are distressed to find that there was complete non-application of mind on the part of the learned Judges. While it is true that they were entitled to come to a particular conclusion upon the facts of a given case, they could not possibly have quashed the impugned order of detention merely on the ground that detention orders in similar cases had earlier been revoked. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court are set aside and it is directed to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible; and in any event, not later than four weeks from today.

This is a paid feature.
Please subscribe to download the judgment.

Legend

Size = Directly proportional to the number of citations

Color = Jurisdiction U.S. Supreme Court State Supreme Court Court of Appeals District Courts

Line Incoming = Cited by Outgoing = Cites

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

Copy Textarea