2011 (1) TMI 1269 - SC - FEMA

Whether the representations filed on behalf of the detenus were not disposed of in accordance with the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution? Whether the manner of consideration and rejection of representation by the Central Government is in accord with the principles laid down by this Court on this aspect in several cases?

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of writ petitions for Habeas Corpus under COFEPOSA due to delay in disposing of representations by Central Government.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard four appeals challenging the rejection of writ petitions for Habeas Corpus under the COFEPOSA by the High Court of Kerala. The detention orders were served on the detenus on 10th March, 2011, and their representations were rejected by the State Government on 8th April, 2011, but the Central Government took until 6th June, 2011, to reject them. The delay was explained in an affidavit, detailing the movement of the file and reasons for the timeline. The issue raised was whether the delay in considering and rejecting the representations by the Central Government adhered to the principles set by previous court judgments.

The Constitution Bench decision highlighted the importance of expeditiously considering and disposing of representations under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that any unexplained delay in disposal of representations would breach constitutional imperatives and render continued detention illegal. Subsequent judgments reiterated these principles and emphasized the need to avoid supine indifference or callous attitude in considering representations. The Court noted that delays in disposal of representations void continued detention and emphasized the significance of procedural safeguards for protecting personal liberty.

The Court held that the delay in this case was significant, with no satisfactory explanation provided. Relying on past precedents, the Court concluded that procedural safeguards must be strictly followed to protect personal liberty. The Court emphasized that technical objections in Habeas Corpus petitions cannot deprive individuals of their liberty, as the writ is a crucial remedy to safeguard individual freedoms against executive authority.

In conclusion, the Court overruled technical objections raised, allowing the appeals and directing the immediate release of the detenus unless required in connection with another case. The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural safeguards, expeditious consideration of representations, and the significant role of Habeas Corpus in protecting individual liberties against state authority.