9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention of one year also expired. 4. Notice was issued by this Court on 18th April, 2022, but no one appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1 despite service of notice. 5. On the last date of hearing, i.e., 1st September 2022, this Court requested Ms. Prerna Singh, learned Advocate to appear as Amicus Curiae on behalf of respondent no.1 in both the appeals which she voluntarily accepted and assisted the Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Prerna Singh, Amicus Curiae on behalf of the respondent no. 1 in both the appeals as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and with their assistance perused the material on record. 7. The challenge in the writ petition originally filed on behalf of respondent no.1 was the order of detention dated 17th May, 2021 and the grounds of detention dated 22nd May, 2021 passed by the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, whereby respondent no.1 was subjected to preventive detention under the provisions of the Act 1988. 8. The main thrust on which the writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the order of detention was that respondent no.1 was not supplied with legible copies of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants before the High Court, the only justification tendered was that all the relevant documents relied upon by the detaining authority were supplied to respondent no.1 and he did not make any such request in his representation of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority either being blurred or illegible at any stage during pendency of the proceedings until the final order of detention came to be passed by the detaining authority. The extract of relevant para no.10 of counter affidavit is reproduced hereunder: "10. That, with reference to Para Nos.9 and 15(e) of the Writ Petition, the deponent begs to submit that all legible documents which form the basis of the grounds of detention were furnished to the detenu. Moreover, the detenu while submitting his representation could have sought any relevant document from the Detaining Authority as done in other cases. However, the petitioner did not mention any such request in his representation submitted to the detaining authority. Original acknowledgement receipt annexed hereto and marked as A." 12. Likewise, in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.15 of 2021 before the High Court, similar averments were made. Extracts of para 9 and grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not at any stage before the detaining authority. In the given facts and circumstances, learned counsel submits that the interference made by the High Court in setting aside the order of detention is not legally sustainable and deserves to be interfered with by this Court. 15. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 supported the order of the High Court and submitted that once it is settled that the supply of legible copies of documents relied upon by the detaining authority is a sine qua non for making an effective representation to be a part of his fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and once this specific allegation was made by respondent no. 1 in the writ petition with facts and particulars and also the pages which, according to him, were illegible and blurred and that has deprived respondent no.1 in making an effective representation, denial thereof was indeed in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution and once the fundamental right has been infringed, even if it was not raised before the detaining authority, that will not take away the fundamental right conferred by law to respondent no.1 in assailing order of detention a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority has been considered by this Court in Bhupinder Singh (supra) as under: "1. On 3-10-1985 the officers of the Enforcement Directorate searched House No. B.20, Gujranwala Town, Part II, Delhi and recovered certain quantity of foreign exchange. It appears that the petitioner was not immediately available. He was called and interrogated. He made a statement which was recorded by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate. On 19-3-1986 an order for detention of the petitioner was made by Shri M.L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. The petitioner was arrested on 16-4- 1986 and served with a copy of the order of detention. Grounds of detention were served on him four days later. On 12-5-1986 he was produced before the Advisory Board. He made a complaint before the Advisory Board that the copies of documents which were supplied to him along with the grounds of detention were not legible and he also placed before the Advisory Board a copy of a representation said to have been made by him for supply of legible copies of documents. There i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , irrespective of whether he had knowledge of the same or not. These have been recognised by this Court as the minimum safeguards to ensure that preventive detention laws, which are an evil necessity, do not become instruments of oppression in the hands of the authorities concerned or to avoid criminal proceedings which would entail a proper investigation. 28-30. xxx xxx xxx 31. Of course, in Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran case [(2000) 9 SCC 170] it was also made clear that there is no legal requirement that a copy of every document mentioned in the order has to be supplied to the detenu. What is, therefore, imperative is that copies of such documents which had been relied upon by the detaining authority for reaching the satisfaction that in the interest of the State and its citizens the preventive detention of the detenu is necessary, have to be supplied to him. Furthermore, if in this case, the detenu's representation and writ petition had been placed before the detaining authority, which according to the detenu contained his entire defence to the allegations made against him, the same may have weighed with the detaining authority as to the necessity of issuing the order of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
