1986 (10) TMI 328 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to detention orders under COFEPOSA.
2. Non-supply of requested information to detenus.
3. Relevance of advisory board's opinion on continued detention.
4. Violation of fundamental right under Article 22 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the challenge posed by the petitioners against the detention orders dated 19th March 1986 under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The detaining authority justified the detention to prevent the petitioners from abetting smuggling activities, relying on various materials including statements of individuals related to the detenus who were also detained. The petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of their detention.

2. The detenus requested specific information through their counsel, which was denied by the authorities stating it was not necessary for effective representation. The rejection of the information request was communicated to the detenus. This denial of requested information raised concerns regarding the detenus' ability to make meaningful representations against their detention, highlighting a procedural issue in the detention process.

3. The detenus contended that the opinion and proceedings of the advisory board, which ordered the release of individuals related to the detenus, were crucial in deciding the continued detention of the petitioners. The detaining authority did not consider these materials while rejecting the representations of the detenus. The court found that the advisory board's opinion was relevant and should have been taken into account by the detaining authority to ensure a fair assessment of the detention orders.

4. The court held that the failure of the detaining authority to consider the advisory board's opinion and proceedings regarding the release of related individuals amounted to a violation of the detenus' fundamental rights under Article 22 of the Constitution. The court concluded that the relevant material was not appropriately considered, leading to an illegal detention of the petitioners. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, ordering the immediate release of the petitioners unless detained under any other law.