1986 (2) TMI 334 - SC - FEMA

Whether it was necessary to detain the appellant under the COFEPOSA? Held that - No one can dispute the right of the detaining authority to make an order of detention if on a consideration of the relevant material, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that it was necessary to detain the appellant. But the question was whether the detaining authority applied its mind to relevant considerations. If it did not, the appellant would be entitled to be released. The counters to which we have referred seem to us to make it clear that relevant material was not placed before the detaining authority and therefore, there was no occasion for the detaining authority to apply its mind to the relevant material. In the circumstances, the appellant is entitled to be released. The appeal is allowed and the appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Summary

Issues:
Detention under COFEPOSA - Non-application of mind by detaining authority - Relevant facts not considered - Habeas corpus petition - Jurisdiction of detaining authority - Bail applications not placed before detaining authority - Counter affidavits by Union of India and State of Rajasthan - Release of appellant.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Supreme Court dealt with the detention of an individual under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The appellant, who was under detention, challenged the order by arguing that there was a non-application of mind by the detaining authority as crucial facts were not presented before the authority. The appellant contended that certain facts, including retractions from confessional statements and bail applications, were not considered, thus affecting the satisfaction of the detaining authority. The High Court rejected the habeas corpus petition, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Union of India, as the second respondent, filed a counter affidavit stating that the bail applications were not submitted before the detaining authority but claimed they were not material to be presented. Similarly, the State of Rajasthan filed counter affidavits, with one stating that the documents referred to by the appellant were not relevant, and another mentioning that the Screening Committee had considered all relevant materials before the detention order was confirmed. However, it was revealed that the documents highlighted by the appellant were not placed before the detaining authority, indicating a clear non-application of mind by the authority to crucial material.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the detaining authority must consider all relevant material before making a detention decision. Despite the Screening Committee reviewing the documents initially, it was crucial for the detaining authority to assess the material directly. The Court clarified that the detaining authority's jurisdiction does not negate the requirement for a proper application of mind to pertinent information. As the relevant material was not presented before the detaining authority, the Court concluded that the appellant was entitled to be released. The appeal was allowed, directing the immediate release of the appellant. The Court highlighted a lack of relevant records with the Union of India's counsel but affirmed that it did not impact the case's outcome based on the information provided in the counter affidavits.