2006 (8) TMI 605 - SC - FEMA

Whether order of detention passed under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 on January 27, 2006 valid?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in passing the order of detention.
2. Non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
3. Supply of documents in a language not understood by the detenu.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Passing the Order of Detention:

The petitioner argued that there was an inordinate delay in passing the detention order, which resulted in snapping the live link between the acts complained of and the order of detention. The detenu's prejudicial activities were noticed in March 2005, but the order was passed 10 months later, on January 27, 2006. The detaining authority explained that the processing of the proposal was a continuous process, involving multiple steps and the examination of voluminous documents. The proposal was first approved by the Screening Committee on June 14, 2005, and received by the detaining authority on July 7, 2005. Additional documents and representations were received and considered at various stages, leading to the finalization of the order in January 2006. The Court was satisfied that there was no undue delay and that the matter was processed continuously and diligently, considering the voluminous material involved.

2. Non-application of Mind by the Detaining Authority:

The petitioner contended that the detaining authority, who took charge on January 10, 2006, could not have considered all the material within the short span of 12 working days before issuing the detention order on January 27, 2006. The detaining authority countered this by stating that she had considered all relevant material and reached the requisite subjective satisfaction before issuing the order. The Court noted that the process of issuing the detention order was continuous and involved multiple levels of scrutiny and approval. The detaining authority had indeed applied her mind to the material and independently reached the subjective satisfaction necessary for issuing the order. The Court rejected the argument that the order was issued in haste or without application of mind.

3. Supply of Documents in a Language Not Understood by the Detenu:

The petitioner claimed that the detenu did not understand English, and the documents were not provided in a language he understood, breaching Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The detenu had signed the documents in English and later requested translations in Marathi. The translated documents were provided within 10 days. The Court found ample evidence that the detenu was conversant with English, as he had corresponded with authorities in English and signed documents in English. The Court concluded that the service of documents in English did not breach Article 22(5), and the subsequent provision of translated documents further supported this conclusion.

Conclusion:

The Court found no merit in the contentions regarding delay, non-application of mind, and the language of the documents. The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. The Court also noted that the issue of delay in the disposal of the representation was not raised in the writ petition and could be challenged separately if advised.