9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Detention under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, consideration of representation by detaining authority, legality of continued detention, compliance with constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
In this case, a writ petition was filed seeking to quash the detention of a detenu under an order issued u/s 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. The detenu's representation was forwarded to the Advisory Board before being considered by the detaining authority, the Chief Secretary. The detenu contended that the continuous detention was illegal on the grounds that the detaining authority should have considered the representation before sending it to the Advisory Board, and that the representation should have been considered and rejected by the Chief Secretary himself, not by the Administrator. The detenu argued that this failure to strictly comply with constitutional safeguards resulted in his continued illegal detention. The Supreme Court held that the detenu's continued detention was liable to be quashed because the detaining authority, the Chief Secretary, did not reject the representation himself but submitted it to the Administrator who ultimately rejected it. This process did not comply with the requirements under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the COFEPOSA. The Court noted that the Chief Secretary only considered the representation and made an endorsement for rejection, but the final decision was made by the Administrator. As a result, the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) was not strictly observed, rendering the detention illegal. The Court quashed the detention order and directed the detenu's immediate release. No costs were awarded in this case.
|
