1987 (2) TMI 184 - SC - Indian Laws

Detention - Preventive detention - Quashable if detenu denied fair and adequate opportunity of representing against his detention

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to detention order under COFEPOSA Act based on language of documents, adequacy of representation before Advisory Board.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to a detention order under the COFEPOSA Act. The detenu, of Ladakhi origin, was detained based on the recovery of smuggled gold and foreign currency. The detenu claimed that the items belonged to another individual, and he was merely holding them for that person. The detaining authority made the order of detention based on materials from Customs Authorities. The detenu's representation against detention was heard by the Advisory Board, and his detention was confirmed.

The petitioner raised three main submissions challenging the detention order. Firstly, it was argued that the detenu was denied a fair opportunity to represent against his detention as the grounds and documents were not in a language he understood. Secondly, the timing of the detenu's representation reaching the Advisory Board was questioned. Lastly, it was contended that the detaining authority did not properly consider the relevant papers before making the order.

During the proceedings, discrepancies were noted in the documents supplied to the detenu. The detaining authority failed to provide all relevant documents in a language understandable to the detenu. The law requires that material be provided in a language the detenu understands for effective representation. The detenu's wife, who knew both English and Tibetan, was not sufficient to meet this legal requirement. The Court emphasized strict compliance with legal provisions in preventive detention cases.

Regarding the representation before the Advisory Board, although there were delays in sending the detenu's representation, it was accepted that the Board had considered it during the hearing. However, due to the defects and shortcomings in the detention order, it was quashed, and the detenu was directed to be released immediately. The Court highlighted the importance of following legal procedures meticulously in matters of preventive detention to uphold the rights of the detenu.