A was arrested and detailed under the conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention order prevented A from meeting A's lawyer more than once month. A filed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the detention order, which restricted A from meeting A's lawyer. In light of these facts, which of the following statements is the most accurate application of the principle below?

All India Bar Examination (AIBE) 3-III Previous Year Question Papers with Answers

Practice Mode:

86.

A was arrested and detailed under the conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention order prevented A from meeting A's lawyer more than once month. A filed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the detention order, which restricted A from meeting A's lawyer. In light of these facts, which of the following statements is the most accurate application of the principle below?

Principle :

According to Article 22 of the Constitution of India, "No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may not be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall be denied the right to consult, and to the defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice."

A: A will succeed became the detention order violates Articles 22 of the constitution of India, as it restricts the right of the accused to consult a lawyer of choice.

B: A will not succeed because the restriction stipulating that A can meet a lawyer once a month is a reasonable restriction.

C: A will succeed because A has the right to meet anyone A wants to

D: A sill not succeeds because A is a detainee and has no fundamental rights.

E: A will not succeed because the order of detention is in valid exercise of authority.

The answer is: A

<< Previous Question

Next Question >>

Explanation

The correct option is A: A will succeed because the detention order violates Article 22 of the Constitution of India, as it restricts the right of the accused to consult a lawyer of choice. This option reflects the principle of Article 22, which guarantees the right to legal representation for any person who is arrested or detained. This right cannot be denied or curtailed by any law or order.

Option B is incorrect because the restriction stipulating that A can meet a lawyer once a month is not a reasonable restriction. It is an arbitrary and excessive limitation on the right to legal consultation, which is essential for the defence of the detained person. The Supreme Court of India has held that the right to consult a lawyer of one's choice is part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and any law that abridges this right is void.

Option C is incorrect because A does not have the right to meet anyone A wants to. The right to legal consultation is not the same as the right to social or personal interaction. The purpose of this right is to enable the detained person to seek legal advice and assistance for his or her case. The state may impose reasonable restrictions on the communication of the detained person with other persons, in the interest of national security, public order, or prevention of crime.

Option D is incorrect because A is a detainee and has some fundamental rights. The Constitution of India does not deprive a person of his or her fundamental rights merely because he or she is detained under a preventive detention law. The Supreme Court of India has held that preventive detention does not amount to punishment, and therefore, the detainee is entitled to the protection of Articles 19, 21, and 22, subject to reasonable restrictions.

Option E is incorrect because the order of detention is not a valid exercise of authority. The order of detention is based on a law that violates Article 22 of the Constitution of India, by denying the right to legal consultation. Therefore, the order of detention is also unconstitutional and invalid. The Supreme Court of India has held that any law that contravenes Article 22 is void ab initio, and any action taken under such law is also null and void.