9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention under COFEPOSA Act based on the competent authority's consideration of the detention report. 2. Interpretation and application of statutory notifications and executive orders regarding delegation of powers under the COFEPOSA Act. 3. Compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution concerning the detenu's rights. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Detention Under COFEPOSA Act: The primary issue in this case was whether the consideration of the report of detention by the Joint Secretary (Revenue) rendered the continued detention of the respondent illegal. The respondent was detained under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act by the Lt. Governor of Delhi to prevent smuggling activities. The High Court of Delhi found the detention illegal because the report under Section 3(2) was considered by the Joint Secretary (Revenue), who was not the competent authority as per the 1996 order issued by the Finance Minister. The Supreme Court, however, held that the Joint Secretary was competent to exercise powers under the 1991 notification, which was a statutory notification, and thus, the detention was legal. 2. Interpretation and Application of Statutory Notifications and Executive Orders: The appellant contended that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the 1991 notification and the 1996 order. The 1991 notification, issued under Rule 3 of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1991, delegated powers to officers in the Ministry of Finance, including the Joint Secretary (Revenue). The 1996 order, which was not a statutory notification, delegated certain powers to the Secretary (Revenue). The Supreme Court concluded that the 1996 order did not supersede the 1991 notification because a non-statutory order cannot replace a statutory notification. Thus, the Joint Secretary was deemed competent to consider the report under Section 3(2) of the COFEPOSA Act. 3. Compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution: Article 22(5) of the Constitution mandates that a detenu be informed of the grounds of detention and be given the earliest opportunity to make a representation. The High Court had ruled that the failure to consider the report by the competent authority violated Article 22(5). However, the Supreme Court clarified that the consideration of the State Government's report by the Central Government is a statutory requirement under the COFEPOSA Act, separate from the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5). The Court held that the statutory requirement was met as the Joint Secretary was competent to consider the report, thus upholding the legality of the detention. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, concluding that the Joint Secretary (Revenue) was competent to consider the report under Section 3(2) of the COFEPOSA Act. The appeal was allowed, and the detention was deemed legal, as the statutory and constitutional requirements were satisfied.
|
