1989 (4) TMI 177 - SC - Customs

Validity and legality of the order of detention questioned - Held that - The supine indifference, slackness and callous attitude on the part of the Jail Superintendent who had unreasonably delayed in transmitting the representation as an intermediary, had ultimately caused undue delay in the disposal of the appellant s representation by the Government which received the representation 11 days after it was handed over to the Jail Superintendent by the detenu. This avoidable and unexplained delay has resulted in rendering the continued detention of the appellant illegal and constitutionally impermissible. Allow this Criminal Appeal by setting aside the judgment of the High Court, quash the impugned detention order and direct the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing a writ petition challenging the order of detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
- Allegation of undue delay in disposing of the detenu's representation by the Central Government.
- Examination of the delay in transmitting the representation by the Jail Superintendent.
- Interpretation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution regarding the right to representation and its expeditious consideration.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court, which upheld the order of detention passed against the appellant under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detaining authority concluded that the detenu was involved in unauthorized financial transactions affecting the country's foreign exchange resources. The appellant contended that there was undue delay in the Central Government's disposal of his representation, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The High Court accepted the explanation provided by the Ministry of Finance regarding the delay, but the appellant argued that an unexplained 11-day delay between submission and receipt of the representation rendered the detention order invalid.

The Court emphasized the importance of timely consideration of representations under Article 22(5) and cited previous judgments highlighting the constitutional right to prompt review. It clarified that there is no fixed timeline for disposal but emphasized that delays due to negligence or inaction are unacceptable. The Court referenced cases where delays in transmitting representations were deemed impermissible, emphasizing the obligation of authorities to handle representations promptly to uphold constitutional rights.

In this case, the Court found that the Jail Superintendent's delay in transmitting the representation caused an unjustifiable delay in the Government's consideration. Despite the appellant handing over the representation promptly, the Superintendent's inaction led to an 11-day delay in reaching the Government. The Court held that this avoidable delay violated the detenu's rights, rendering the continued detention illegal. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the detention order, and directed the detenu's immediate release.