2000 (9) TMI 1000 - SC - FEMA

Whether the circumstances of suspicion exist warranting the restraint on a person? Held that - Appeal allowed. When the period of detention itself had expired 13 years earlier then this Court came to the conclusion as aforesaid. Husband of the respondent evaded arrest as is obvious and obtained an interim order from the High Court which was in force till the disposal of the writ petition and thereafter on quashing of the detention order question of detention made did not arise now. Therefore we do not think that it would be appropriate to state that merely by passage of time the nexus between the object for which the husband of the respondent is sought to be detained and the circumstances in which he was ordered to be detained has snapped. However we make it clear that if those circumstances did not exist then it would be appropriate for the Government to revoke the order of detention and if still certain circumstances as apprehended in the order of detention exist it will be open to the Government to enforce the same

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of detention order under COFEPOSA Act
2. Jurisdiction of High Court in preventive detention cases
3. Applicability of detention order after a significant lapse of time

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court addressed the validity of a detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act). The case involved the detention of an individual suspected of smuggling activities based on possession of foreign currency. The High Court had quashed the detention order, citing lack of proper application of mind by the authorities. The High Court emphasized that invoking COFEPOSA Act for a solitary incident may not align with the preventive nature of the Act. The Supreme Court noted that preventive detention is based on suspicion, and the court should not substitute its judgment for the detaining authority's satisfaction unless the grounds are irrelevant to the Act's objective. The Court highlighted the subjective nature of the satisfaction required for detention orders and upheld the authorities' due application of mind in this case. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of preventing smuggling activities through appropriate detention measures under the Act.

2. The jurisdiction of the High Court in preventive detention cases was also a crucial issue in the judgment. The appellants had raised objections regarding the High Court's jurisdiction and the nature of the case being a predetention matter. The High Court had ruled against the appellants on these points, asserting its authority to review the detention order. However, the Supreme Court, while acknowledging the High Court's role in examining the legality of detention orders, deemed it unnecessary to delve into the preliminary questions raised. The Court focused on the merits of the case, emphasizing the importance of upholding the preventive nature of the COFEPOSA Act while considering the legality of detention orders. The judgment underscored the need for a balanced approach in reviewing preventive detention cases, ensuring that detentions are in line with the Act's objectives and legal requirements.

3. The issue of the applicability of a detention order after a significant lapse of time was also discussed in the judgment. The respondent had argued that due to the delay between the detention order and the actual detention, the nexus for continued detention had weakened. Citing a previous case, the respondent contended that a detenu should not be sent back for further detention after a prolonged period unless a proximate nexus existed. The Supreme Court differentiated the present case from the precedent cited, highlighting the circumstances where the detenu had evaded arrest and obtained interim relief from the High Court. The Court emphasized that the nexus for detention remained valid in this case, and the government could enforce the detention order if the circumstances warranting detention persist. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision and reinstating the detention order under the COFEPOSA Act.