9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 1047 - SC - Indian LawsDetention order - smuggling - contraband gold - baggage - Non-supply of relevant documents (WhatsApp chats) - right of the detenus under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - In the present case, the detenue had sought the copies of the said WhatsApp chats. However, the Division Bench of the High Court in the present case, while rejecting the case of the detenue, observed that the detaining authority had arrived at a subjective satisfaction on the basis of various documents and that non-supply of the WhatsApp chats would not vitiate the detention order. It, therefore, held that the findings of the Coordinate Bench of the same High Court in the cases of Nushath Koyamu 2022 (6) TMI 326 - KERALA HIGH COURT and other connected matters in respect of other detenus could not be followed in the present case. The Division Bench of the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order should have followed the view taken by another Division Bench of the same High Court specifically when the grounds of detention and the grounds of challenge were identical in both the cases. In the event, the Division Bench of the High Court was of the view that the earlier decision of the Coordinate Bench of the same High Court was not correct in law, the only option available to it was to refer the matter to a larger Bench. Order of detention is quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-supply of relevant documents (WhatsApp chats) affecting the right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 2. Judicial discipline and adherence to the precedent set by a Coordinate Bench. Detailed Analysis: Non-supply of Relevant Documents: The appellant challenged the detention order dated 24th August 2021 and its confirmation on 24th May 2022 on the grounds of non-supply of relevant documents, specifically WhatsApp chats, which were crucial for making an effective representation. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, distinguishing it from a previous judgment by a Coordinate Bench in the case of Nushath Koyamu vs. Union of India, where the detention orders were quashed due to the non-supply of WhatsApp chats. The Supreme Court noted that the grounds of detention for the present detenue and the co-detenus in the Nushath Koyamu case were almost identical. The Coordinate Bench in Nushath Koyamu had held that the non-supply of WhatsApp chats, which were relied upon by the detaining authority, vitally affected the detenus' right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution to make an effective representation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the non-supply of these documents impaired the detenue's procedural rights, rendering the detention order invalid. Judicial Discipline and Adherence to Precedent: The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of judicial discipline and the need for consistency in judicial decisions. It criticized the Division Bench of the High Court for not following the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench in the Nushath Koyamu case. The Court referred to its own observations in Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Others, stressing that disrespect for judicial discipline undermines the credibility of the judicial institution and encourages conflicting judgments. The Supreme Court stated that if the Division Bench of the High Court believed the earlier decision of the Coordinate Bench was incorrect, it should have referred the matter to a larger Bench instead of rendering a conflicting judgment. The Court reiterated that predictability and certainty are hallmarks of judicial jurisprudence, and deviation from established precedents without proper justification harms the judicial system. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing both the detention order dated 24th August 2021 and its confirmation on 24th May 2022. The Court's decision was based on the failure to supply the WhatsApp chats, which were crucial for the detenue to make an effective representation, and the lack of adherence to judicial discipline by the High Court's Division Bench.
|
