Arguments Of Respondent
Reasoning
Decision
Dilip K. Basu And Others
v.
State Of W.b. And Others
(Supreme Court Of India)
Criminal M.P. No's. 4201 of 1997 and 4105 of 1999 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 539 of 1986 and 592 of 1987 | 21-01-2000
1. We have perused the Office Report dated 20th January, 2000.
2. No affidavits have been filed on behalf of the States of Manipur, Tripura, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Union Territory of Lakshadweep. Learned counsel appearing for these States and Union Territory pray for one final opportunity to file the necessary affidavits giving complete details. Four weeks' time, as prayed for, is granted for the purpose.
3. An application has been filed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh for extension of time for filing the detailed affidavit. We grant the application and give four weeks' further time to do the needful.
4. We have considered the Status Reports for the Union Territory of Delhi and the State of Assam. It appears that various directions given in D.K. Basu's case have been complied with both by the State of Assam and the Union Territory of Delhi. However, so far as the Union Territory of Delhi is concerned, the response to direction 'K' with regard to the place from where the person concerned is arrested, has not been furnished. Mr. Wasim A Quadri, learned Counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Delhi submits that an additional affidavit giving this information shall be filed within six weeks.
5. List the main matter after six weeks for directions. The date shall be fixed in consultation with the learned Amicus.
Advocates List
none
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE JUSTICE A. S. ANAND C.J
HON'BLE JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEDGE
HON'BLE JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT
Eq Citation
(2003) 11 SCC 723
2000 (1) SCALE 418
LQ/SC/2000/145
HeadNote
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
