1991 (12) TMI 280 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the detention orders under the COFEPOSA Act.
2. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
3. Procedural safeguards and application of mind by the detaining authority.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Detention Orders:

The petitioners sought quashing of the detention orders and declarations made against them u/s 3(1)(i) and 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. The detentions were based on the suspicion of smuggling activities by the petitioners, who were apprehended by the Coast Guards and handed over to the Customs Authority. The Karnataka Government issued the detention orders on 7-3-1991, which were served on the petitioners on 11-3-1991, leading to their detention in the Central Prison, Bangalore. The Advisory Board opined that there was sufficient cause for the detention, leading to the continuation of detention up to 10-3-1993.

2. Subjective Satisfaction of the Detaining Authority:

The primary contention was that the detaining authority did not arrive at the requisite satisfaction u/s 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. The court examined whether the detaining authority applied its mind to the relevant materials before making the detention orders. The court referred to several legal precedents, emphasizing that the subjective satisfaction must be based on materials of rationally probative value and must not be illusory. The court scrutinized the original records and found that the detaining authority, Sri N. A. Muthanna, Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Home Department, had only a short time to peruse the voluminous documents. The court concluded that the detaining authority could not have possibly applied his mind to the materials, rendering the satisfaction illusory.

3. Procedural Safeguards and Application of Mind:

The court noted that the procedural safeguards provided under the Constitution and laws were not adhered to. The detaining authority's endorsement of the proposal without scrutinizing the materials indicated a lack of application of mind. The court emphasized that the subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention must be real and not based on the opinion of another authority. The court found that the detaining authority acted on the views expressed by the Law Department without independently applying his mind.

Conclusion:

The court quashed the detention orders and the declarations made under the COFEPOSA Act, finding them vitiated by illegality due to the lack of application of mind by the detaining authority. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary and unjustified invasion of personal liberty. The petitions were allowed, and the impugned detention orders and declarations were quashed.