India's preventive detention laws, which originated during colonial rule, were described as having great potential for abuse and misuse by the Supreme Court while setting aside a detention order. The court emphasized that laws conferring arbitrary power to the state must be subject to critical examination and used only in exceptional circumstances.
A two-judge bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice V. Ramasubramanian noted that in cases of preventive detention, every procedural rigidity must be followed entirely by the government. Furthermore, any lapse in procedure should give rise to a benefit to the detenue's case. The court said that in circumstances of preventive detention, the protection of individual and civil liberties is of utmost importance and is a duty conferred upon the courts by the Constitution.
Facts:
In November 2021, the appellant and several other syndicate members were arrested by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in Delhi on charges of smuggling gold into India. The arrests were made based on an intelligence report about a syndicate comprising Chinese, Taiwanese, South Korean, and Indian nationals involved in the illegal activity.
Following this, in January 2022, the DRI submitted a proposal to the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) to issue a detention order against the appellant under the COFEPOSA Act. Subsequently, in February 2022, the detaining authority passed the detention order, and the appellant was arrested by the DRI.
The appellant made a representation to the Central Government after his detention under the COFEPOSA Act. He also made another representation to the Advisory Board and appeared before them for a hearing. Despite the Advisory Board advising the Central Government to reject his representation, there was a delay of 60 days before the Central Government acted on it. Subsequently, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking to quash the detention order. However, the court dismissed his plea on November 3, 2022.
In January 2023, the appellant was released from custody on interim relief due to his father's demise. Later, he was released from detention after his detention order had expired.
The appellant has approached the Supreme Court with an appeal against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated November 3, 2022. The High Court had rejected the appellant's request to quash the detention order, citing a delay in the consideration of his representation.
Arguments:
The Counsel representing the appellant argued before the Supreme Court that an unreasonable delay in considering a representation made by the detenue in cases of preventive detention, as per Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, is enough grounds to set aside a detention order. The Counsel further contended that the decisions of the Apex Court in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India & Ors. and Ankit Ashok Jalan v. Union of India & Ors. are in direct conflict with the Constitution Bench judgments of the Court in Pankaj Kumar Chakraborty And Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal, and hence the matter needs to be referred to a Larger Bench.
The appellant's Counsel also argued that the documents provided to the appellant as grounds for his preventive detention were illegible and in the Chinese language, which is another reason to quash the detention order against the appellant.
The respondents, on the other hand, argued that there was no discrepancy between the Pankaj case and the Ashok Jalan case, as contended by the appellant. They claimed that the decisions relied upon by the appellant were under the context of the Preventive Detention Act, whereas the Ashok Jalan case and Abdullah Kuni case were under the context of the COFEPOSA Act.
Analysis:
The Supreme Court of India recognized that preventive detention laws have the potential to be misused and that they should be used only in the rarest of rare cases. The Court emphasized that in cases of preventive detention, where a person is held in custody not for a crime committed but for a perceived risk of committing a crime, the benefit of doubt should always be given to the detainee. Even minor lapses in procedural compliance should be resolved in the detainee's favor.
The Court explained that under the COFEPOSA Act, a detainee has the right to submit representations to the detaining authority, the Government, and the Advisory Board. According to Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution, these representations must be decided as soon as possible. If the representation is accepted by the Government or the detaining officer, the detainee is released. However, if the representation is rejected, the detention period continues.
In this case, the Court found that while the detaining authority considered the appellant's representation in a timely manner, the Government took 60 days to consider it. The appellant argued that this delay was fatal to the prosecution's case and constituted sufficient grounds for quashing the detention order.
The Court referred to two Constitution Bench judgments in this matter. In the Pankaj Kumar case, it was held that the central Government can decide the representation made by the detenue without hearing from the Advisory Board. In the Abdullah Kunhi case, it was held that the Government must wait for the decision of the Advisory Board before making its own decision on the representation.
The Court clarified that these two judgments apply to two separate authorities within the COFEPOSA Act, and there is no friction between them. Therefore, there is no need for this point of law to be referred to a Larger Bench as it is already settled.
The Court emphasized that preventive detention laws should be used very cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances. The Courts should always err on the side of caution and give the benefit of doubt to the detainee. Even minor lapses in procedural compliance should be resolved in the detainee's favor.
The Court emphasized the importance of upholding civil liberties and protecting the rights of individuals, as well as preserving the Constitutional ethos of India. The Court stated that any laws that confer arbitrary power to the state must be critically examined and used only in rare cases. In cases of preventive detention, where a person is held in custody not for a crime committed but for a perceived risk of committing a crime, the Courts must always err on the side of caution and give the benefit of doubt to the detainee.
The Court found that in this case, the appellant's representation had been delayed by the government for 60 days, which the appellant argued was fatal to the prosecution's case and constituted sufficient grounds for quashing the detention order. The Court noted that there had been a similar case where a co-detainee's detention order had been quashed on the same grounds of illegible documents. The Court held that the principle of parity must apply in such cases, and therefore set aside the detention order against the appellant.
The Court emphasized that the protection of civil liberties is not just about safeguarding the rights of individuals but is also about upholding the Constitutional principles that were born out of struggles against the arbitrary power of the British state. Even though the appellant has already been released due to the expiration of the detention period, the Court allowed the appeal in order to clarify the point of law and ensure that the rights of individuals are protected.
Case Title- Pramod Singla v. UOI & Ors.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Supreme Court preventive detention laws COFEPOSA Act Constitution of India detention order detenue representation detaining authority government advisory board benefit of doubt procedural compliance parity principle civil liberties arbitrary power.
