2009 (4) TMI 953 - SC - Customs

Detention of person - smuggling - red sanders - principles of natural justice - the relied upon document, the detention order of Anil Kumar was not supplied to the detenu and the detenu was prevented from making effective representation which has violated his constitutional right under clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-supply of relied upon and relevant documents.
2. Non-application of mind in the detention order.
3. Failure to place all relevant documents before the detaining authority.
4. The argument that prejudice cannot be urged in detention matters.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-supply of Relied Upon and Relevant Documents:
The detenu's primary contention was that the detention order was vitiated due to the non-supply of relied upon and relevant documents, specifically the detention order of Anil Kumar, considered to be the mastermind in the smuggling operation. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of supplying all documents relied upon by the detaining authority to the detenu to enable effective representation. The Court cited several precedents, including Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj v. The State of Delhi, which highlighted the constitutional requirement under Article 22(5) for the detaining authority to furnish particulars of the grounds of detention sufficient to enable the detenu to make a representation. The Court reiterated that failure to supply such documents renders the detention unconstitutional and illegal.

2. Non-application of Mind in the Detention Order:
The detenu argued that the detention order was vitiated due to non-application of mind by the detaining authority. The Supreme Court referenced Shalini Soni v. Union of India, which underscored that the detaining authority must apply its mind to pertinent and proximate matters, ensuring that the grounds for detention are not arbitrary or mechanical. The Court found that the detaining authority's failure to supply the detention order of Anil Kumar, despite acknowledging its relevance, indicated a lack of proper application of mind.

3. Failure to Place All Relevant Documents Before the Detaining Authority:
The detenu contended that the detention order was invalid because all relevant documents were not placed before the detaining authority. The Supreme Court noted that the detaining authority's own admission that the detention order of Anil Kumar was relevant but was not supplied to the detenu, supported this contention. The Court reiterated the legal principle that all documents forming the basis of the detention must be supplied to the detenu for the detention to be valid, as established in cases like Ganga Ramchand Bharvani v. Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra.

4. The Argument that Prejudice Cannot be Urged in Detention Matters:
The detenu argued that the prejudice caused by the non-supply of documents cannot be overlooked in detention matters. The Supreme Court supported this view, referencing Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India, which held that the grounds of detention must be communicated in their entirety, including all documents relied upon, to enable the detenu to make an effective representation. The Court concluded that the non-supply of the detention order of Anil Kumar prejudiced the detenu's ability to contest the detention effectively.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the non-supply of the detention order of Anil Kumar, a crucial document relied upon by the detaining authority, violated the detenu's constitutional rights under Article 22(5). Consequently, the detention order was quashed, and the detenu was ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.