2011 (11) TMI 706 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the rejection of writ petitions for Habeas Corpus challenging detention orders under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 due to delay in disposing of representations by the Central Government.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Delay in Disposal of Representations
The detenus' representations were rejected by the State Government on 8th April, 2011, but the Central Government delayed until 6th June, 2011, to reject them. The delay was explained in detail in an affidavit filed by an Under Secretary to the Government of India. The Court examined the timeline of events leading to the rejection and questioned whether the delay was in line with constitutional principles.

Issue 2: Legal Precedents and Constitutional Provisions
The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the importance of promptly considering and disposing of detenus' representations. The Constitution Bench highlighted the need for expeditious consideration without supine indifference. Subsequent judgments reiterated the necessity of timely action, emphasizing that unexplained delays render continued detention impermissible and illegal.

Issue 3: Procedural Safeguards and Personal Liberty
The Court stressed the strict adherence to procedural safeguards for protecting personal liberty. Citing historical insistence on procedural safeguards for personal liberty, the Court emphasized that delays without adequate explanations could lead to quashing of detention orders.

Issue 4: Technical Objections in Habeas Corpus Petitions
The Court addressed the argument that technical objections regarding the prayer in the Habeas Corpus petition should not be entertained. It highlighted the importance of the writ of Habeas Corpus in safeguarding individual liberties against unlawful restraints, emphasizing the liberal interpretation of regulations to promote the effectiveness of the proceeding.

Conclusion:
The Court overruled technical objections, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding individual liberties through the writ of Habeas Corpus. It allowed the appeals, directing the immediate release of the detenus unless required in connection with another case.