9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Failure to forward representation to Central Government for revocation of detention order. Detailed Analysis: 1. The Government of Madhya Pradesh detained the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detenu challenged the detention order through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking release. 2. The detenu was detained on grounds of engaging in smuggling activities. The detenu was provided with grounds of detention and relevant documents. The petition contended that the representation to the Central Government for revocation of the detention order was not forwarded, depriving the detenu of a crucial right. 3. The detenu submitted representations to the State Government and the Central Government through the Superintendent of District Jail, Indore. However, the State Government rejected the representation meant for it but failed to forward the copy intended for the Central Government, leading to the detenu being denied the opportunity to have his representation considered by the Central Government. 4. The State Government argued that since both copies were addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary and there was no explicit request in the representation to forward a copy to the Central Government, they were not obligated to forward it. The State contended that the detenu's attempt to have the representation reach the Central Government was a "clever device." 5. The Court rejected the State's argument, emphasizing that under Section 11(1) of the Act, the Central Government has the power to revoke a detention order, even if issued by the State Government. Therefore, the detenu's representation to the Central Government should have been forwarded by the State Government. 6. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the Court highlighted the importance of forwarding representations to the Central Government for consideration. The failure to forward the detenu's representation deprived him of the right to defend his fundamental rights to personal liberty. The Court noted that despite the detenu's alleged activities, safeguards under preventive detention laws must not be denied. 7. The Court concluded that the failure of the State Government to forward the detenu's representation to the Central Government rendered the detention illegal. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the detenu was ordered to be released immediately, with no costs imposed on the petition. In summary, the judgment focused on the failure of the State Government to forward the detenu's representation to the Central Government for the revocation of the detention order, leading to the detenu being deprived of a crucial right. The Court emphasized the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights even in cases of preventive detention, ultimately ruling the detention illegal and ordering the detenu's immediate release.
|
