2010 (1) TMI 1292 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-application of mind in the formulation of grounds for detention.
2. Non-consideration of relevant material and non-supply of documents to the detenu.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-application of Mind in the Formulation of Grounds for Detention:

Submissions:
- The petitioner argued that the grounds for detention were formulated by the sponsoring authority and merely adopted by the detaining authority, indicating non-application of independent mind.
- It was contended that the draft grounds of detention prepared by the sponsoring authority were not sent to the detaining authority. However, the petitioner found this claim unbelievable due to the remarkable similarity between the draft grounds and the actual grounds of detention.
- The petitioner provided a chart showing identical errors, averments, chronology of facts, subjective satisfaction, spelling mistakes, and language between the draft and actual grounds, suggesting that the draft grounds were bodily adapted.

Discussion:
- The records showed that the Directorate of Enforcement sent a proposal for detention along with relied upon documents. The proposal was approved by the Central Screening Committee.
- The detaining authority directed the Under Secretary to process the proposal, who then consulted an officer from the Enforcement Directorate, Chennai, for preparing the grounds of detention.
- The actual grounds of detention contained stark similarities and identical errors with the draft grounds prepared by the sponsoring authority, proving that the draft grounds were available and used by the detaining authority.
- The Under Secretary's involvement in drafting the grounds before the detaining authority's application of mind was impermissible and rendered the detention order void ab-initio.
- The judgment in Praduman Singh Vs. Union of India was cited, emphasizing that the detaining authority must draft the detention order with possible assistance from subordinates but cannot delegate this essential task.

2. Non-consideration of Relevant Material and Non-supply of Documents to the Detenu:

Submissions:
- The petitioner argued that the detaining authority did not consider relevant material, such as the counter affidavit filed by the sponsoring authority in the Madras High Court, which stated that the investigation was at an initial stage.
- It was also contended that the writ petition, counter affidavit, and interim stay order from the Madras High Court were not considered by the detaining authority.
- The petitioner argued that even if the detaining authority had considered these documents, it was incumbent to supply copies to the detenu pari passu the grounds of detention.

Discussion:
- The court found that the pendency of the petition in the Madras High Court and the stay order were brought to the notice of the detaining authority and considered.
- However, the detaining authority's consideration of these documents was not reflected in the grounds of detention, and copies were not supplied to the detenu.
- The court cited the judgment in Anil Kumar Vs. UP, stating that non-supply of relevant documents to the detenu amounts to not giving adequate opportunity for making an effective representation.
- The Supreme Court's view in Union of India Vs. Ranu Bhandari was also referenced, emphasizing the necessity to supply all relevant documents to the detenu regardless of whether they had prior knowledge.

Conclusion:
The court found legal infirmities in the impugned order of detention due to non-application of mind in the formulation of grounds and non-supply of relevant documents to the detenu. Consequently, the detention order dated 26.02.2010 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to release the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner was also awarded costs quantified at Rs. 15,000/-.