1999 (8) TMI 971 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
2. Non-supply of material documents to the detenu.
3. Compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Detention Order:
The appeal was directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which dismissed a writ petition for habeas corpus seeking the release of the detenu detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The detention order, dated 24th February 1998, was issued by the Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention), to prevent the detenu from smuggling goods in the future. The detenu was intercepted at Mumbai Airport with a suitcase containing diamonds valued at Rs. 2,43,63,096.25, which were seized under the reasonable belief that they were to be smuggled out of India.

2. Non-supply of Material Documents to the Detenu:
The appellant contended that the detention order was vitiated due to the non-supply of crucial documents seized during the search of premises No. B/13, Sikkanagar, V.P. Road, Mumbai, on 11.8.1997. These documents included:
- Super Deluxe Note Book containing 82 pages.
- Super Deluxe Note Book containing 140 pages.
- Loose Note Sheets Sr.No. 1-42.

The Detaining Authority considered these documents while forming the grounds of detention, which indicated transactions involving various individuals and substantial sums of money. However, these documents were not provided to the detenu, thereby denying him an effective opportunity to make a representation against the detention order.

3. Compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India:
Article 22(5) mandates that a person detained under preventive detention laws must be informed of the grounds of detention and afforded the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the order. The Supreme Court emphasized that the term "grounds" includes not only the conclusions of facts but also the basic facts and material on which those conclusions are based. The detenu was informed of his right to make representations to the Detaining Authority, the State Government, and the Central Government. However, an effective representation could only be made if the detenu had access to all material documents considered by the Detaining Authority.

The Bombay High Court relied on the Detaining Authority's affidavit, which claimed that the diaries and entries were not vital and did not influence the detention order. However, the Supreme Court found the affidavit self-contradictory and inconsistent with the grounds of detention, which explicitly mentioned the consideration of the seized documents. The Court concluded that the non-supply of these material documents violated the detenu's fundamental right under Article 22(5) to make an effective representation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the detention order dated 24.2.1998, and directed the immediate release of the detenu unless he was required to be detained in another case. The judgment underscored the necessity of providing all material documents to the detenu to ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards and the right to a fair opportunity to contest the detention.