BAL CHAND CHORARIA v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

itself all by the government \vhich it was duty bound to consider, that b}' vitiates the order of detention. (ii) The representation clearly recites Mr. Jethmalani acted not as a member of the Parliament but on in<>tructions from his client, namely the detenu. The counsel had no personal matter and he \Vas only advocating the cause of his client. The High Court wa~ in error in construing the representation made by the petitioner as having been made not by him but by his counsel. [401 G-H, 402 Al CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 413 E of 1977. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order 12-8-77 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Writ No. 37 /77. Ram Jethmalani, A. K. Sen, Harjinder Singh and M. N. Lodha for the Appellant. S. N. Kacker, Sol. General, R. P. Bhatt, Girish Chandra for the Res pondent. The Order of the Court was delivered by FAZAL Au. J.- In support of the rule Mr. Jethmalani submitted a short point before us. It was argued that the representation filed by the detenu through his counsel has not been considered by the Go vernment at all. The High Court was of the view that the aforesaid representation was not given by the detenu himself but by Mr. Jethmalani in his capacity as a member of the Parliament. The representation has been placed before us and it clearly recites that the Parliament but on Mr. Jethmalani acted not as a member of instructions from his client, namely, the detenu. In the circumstances, therefore, the High Court was in error in construing the representa tion made by the petitioner as being made not by him but by his coun sel. It is manifest that the counsel had no personal matter and he was In matters where the liberty only advocating the cause of his client. F G H 402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] 2 S.C.R. A B of the subject is concerned and a highly cherished right is involved, the representations made by the detenu should be construed liberally and not technically so as to frustrate or defeat the concept of liberty which is engrained in article 21 of the Constitution. As the repre sentation has not been considered at all by the Government which it was duty bound to consider, that by itself vitiates the order of deten tion. We, th~refore, allow this appeal and direct the appellant to be released forthwith. The order of this Court releasing the appellant on parole, passed by us on the last hearing, is vacated as having become infructuous. S.R, Appeal allowed.