2005 (10) TMI 501 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the High Court was justified in law in not exercising its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of detention at the pre-arrest stage? Held that - Appeal dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not possible to accept the submission that the order was passed for a wrong purpose. Apparently the order has been passed with a view to prevent the appellant from smuggling goods or abetting the smuggling thereof etc. The facts of the present case are no different from the facts in Muneesh Suneja (2001 (1) TMI 903 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). We do not find that the case falls within any of the exceptions enumerated in Alka Subhash Gadia (supra). The High Court was, therefore, justified in refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of detention at the pre-arrest stage

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order of detention passed against the appellant.
2. High Court's discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of detention at the pre-arrest stage.
3. Delay in execution of the detention order.
4. Adequacy of the State's efforts to arrest the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order of Detention:
The appellant challenged the detention order passed by the State of Bihar on September 4, 2002, under Section 3(i), (ii), and (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The appellant argued that the detention order was not executed until the writ petition was filed on June 25, 2003, indicating that the order was issued for purposes other than those authorized by the Act. The appellant claimed that the State took no effective steps to arrest him, which suggested that the detention order was not genuinely intended to prevent smuggling activities.

2. High Court's Discretion under Article 226:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it was not an appropriate case to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the detention order before its execution. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its discretion to quash the detention order at the pre-arrest stage. The Court noted that preventive detention is intended to prevent anti-social activities and is not punitive. It emphasized that authorities must act promptly to secure the detenue and execute the detention order to prevent it from becoming ineffective.

3. Delay in Execution of the Detention Order:
The Court observed that there was a delay in executing the detention order, and the State of Bihar had not taken effective steps to arrest the appellant. The Court noted that inordinate delay without adequate explanation could lead to the assumption that the link between the grounds of detention and its purpose was broken. However, the Court stated that this should not be considered a conclusive opinion, as the detenue could challenge the order after arrest.

4. Adequacy of the State's Efforts to Arrest the Appellant:
The appellant argued that the State did not issue any process under Section 7 of the Act, and the correspondence between the Criminal Investigation Department of Bihar and the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, yielded no results. The Court noted that the State's explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory. The Court referred to previous judgments, including P.U. Iqbal vs. Union of India, Ashok Kumar vs. Delhi Administration, and Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji vs. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that inordinate delay without adequate explanation could invalidate a detention order.

Precedents and Exceptions:
The Court discussed the five exceptions under which a court may interfere with a detention order at the pre-execution stage, as established in the case of Additional Secretary to the Government of India vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia. These exceptions include situations where the order is not passed under the relevant Act, is executed against the wrong person, is passed for a wrong purpose, is based on vague or irrelevant grounds, or is passed by an unauthorized authority. The Court also referred to Union of India vs. Parasmal Rampuria and Sayed Taher Bawamiya vs. Joint Secretary to the Government of India, which reiterated that interference at the pre-arrest stage is limited to these exceptions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant's case did not fall within any of the exceptions enumerated in Alka Subhash Gadia. The Court found that the order of detention was passed to prevent the appellant from engaging in smuggling activities and was not for a wrong purpose. The High Court was justified in refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the detention order at the pre-arrest stage. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.

← Previous Next →