9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (1) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rials on the basis of which the order of detention was passed were supplied to the detenu. On the 18th November 1980, the detenu made a representation to the Government which was disposed of as late as the 15th December 1980. In support of the petition, Mr. Jethmalani has submitted two points on which alone, in our opinion, the petition must succeed. 2. In the first place, it was pointed out that, as already held by this Court the grounds served on the petitioner were not accompanied by the documents and materials which formed the basis of the order of detention, hence the safeguards contained in Article 22(5) of the Constitution not having been complied with, the continued detention of the detenu became void. Secondly, it was argued tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , statements or other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention, they must also be communicated to the detenu, because being incorporated in the grounds of detention, they form part of the grounds and the grounds furnished to the detenu cannot be said to be complete without them. It would not therefore be sufficient to communicate to the detenu a bare recital of the grounds of detention, but copies of the documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention must also be furnished to the detenu within the prescribed time subject of course to Clause (6) of Article 22 in order to constitute compliance with Clause (5) of Article 22 and Section 3, Sub-section (3) of the COFEPOSA Act. One of the primary object ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt but they do not, in our opinion, form the ratio decidendi of this case but were made merely to rebut the extreme arguments that could be put forward. This Court made it very clear that even apart from the interpretation placed by the Court on Article 22(5) of the Constitution, the conclusion is inescapable that the documents and statements which formed the basis of the grounds of detention must be supplied to the detenu without least possible delay. It is in this context that these observations were made in paragraphs 7 and 8. Moreover, this position has been made absolutely clear by a later decision of this Court in Smt. Shalini Soni's case (supra) where a Division Bench of this Court while endorsing Smt. Icchu Devi's case obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ratio in Icchu Devi Choraria's case (supra) extracted above. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the view expressed by the two decisions of this Court and we are unable to accede to the prayer of Mr. Rana for sending the case for reconsideration to a larger Bench. This Court has invariably laid down that before an order of detention can be supported, the constitutional safeguards must be strictly observed. 5. This Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978]2SCR621 has widened the horizon of Article 21 and added new dimensions to various features of and concept of liberty enshrined in Article 21. In view of the decision in the aforesaid case, Article 22(5) of the Constitution assumes a new complexion and has to be con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... innocence in a trial by a court of law. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that all the necessary safeguards laid down by the Constitution under Article 21 or Article 22(5) should be complied with fully and strictly and any departure from any of the safeguards would void the order of detention. This is so because in a civilised society, Like ours, liberty of a citizen is a highly precious right and a prized possession and has to be protected unless it becomes absolutely essential to detain a person in order to prevent him from indulging in anti-national activities like smuggling, etc. We are fortified in our view by a decision of this Court in Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 1969CriLJ1555 where the following observatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion, must be held personally responsible and action should be taken against them for not complying with the constitutional requirements and safeguards (viz. delay in disposing of the representation, not supplying the documents and materials relied upon in the order of detention pari passu the order of detention, etc. etc.) or, at any rate, an explanation from the authorities concerned must be called for by the Central Government so that in future persons against whom serious acts of smuggling are alleged, do not go scot free. In the instant case, not only were the documents and materials not supplied along with the order of detention, but there has been a delay of about 25 days in disposing of the representation of the detenu and no expla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
