Supreme Court Quashes Detention Order Due to Illegible Documents and Upholds Rights of Detainees: Pramod Singla vs. Union of India (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 10th April, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 344
Judges: Krishna Murari, J. and V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Can a detention order be deemed invalid if the detainee is provided with illegible documents as grounds for their detention? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act). The court examined the balance between national security and individual liberties, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness in detention cases.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian, delivered the judgment. The court’s decision underscores the necessity for strict adherence to procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases, particularly concerning the rights of detainees to understand the grounds for their detention and to make effective representations against it.

Case Background

The case revolves around Pramod Singla, who was suspected to be part of a syndicate involved in smuggling gold into India. Acting on intelligence, authorities seized a large quantity of gold at the Delhi Cargo Complex on November 18 and 19, 2021. Following this, a search of Singla’s shop led to the recovery of additional gold. Singla was arrested on November 20, 2021, along with other members of the syndicate, and subsequently remanded to judicial custody.

Singla was granted bail on December 13, 2021. However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) later filed an application to add a condition to his bail, requiring him to appear at the DRI office every Monday. Subsequently, on January 19, 2022, the DRI proposed a detention order against Singla under the COFEPOSA Act, which was issued on February 1, 2022, and he was arrested on February 4, 2022.

Singla made representations against his detention to the detaining authority on March 2, 2022, which was rejected on March 15, 2022. He also sent representations to the Central Government on March 10, 2022, and to the Advisory Board on April 4, 2022. The Central Government rejected his representation on May 9, 2022, after a delay of 60 days, following advice from the Advisory Board. Singla then filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking to quash the detention order, which was dismissed on November 3, 2022. The Supreme Court granted him interim relief on January 5, 2023, due to his father’s demise and he was later released due to the expiry of the detention order.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right of a detainee to be informed of the grounds of their detention and to make a representation against it. This right is crucial in cases of preventive detention, where individuals are detained not for a crime they have committed but for a potential crime they might commit.

The COFEPOSA Act, 1974, under which Singla was detained, allows the government to detain individuals to prevent them from engaging in activities prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange or smuggling. Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act outlines the power to make detention orders. It states:

“Section 3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons. (1) The Central Government or the State Government or any officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, or any officer of the State Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, may, if satisfied, with respect to any person (including a foreigner), that, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange or with a view to preventing him from—(i) smuggling goods, or (ii) abetting the smuggling of goods, or (iii) engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, or (iv) dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, or (v) harbouring persons engaged in smuggling goods or in abetting the smuggling of goods, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained…”

The court also considered the interplay between the detaining authority, the Central Government, and the Advisory Board in the context of preventive detention. The court analyzed the obligations of each authority in considering representations made by the detainee.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant:

• The appellant argued that Article 22(5) of the Constitution mandates that a representation made by a detainee must be considered promptly. An inordinate delay in considering the representation is sufficient grounds to set aside the detention order.
• The appellant relied on several judgments of the Supreme Court, contending that the Central Government is not obligated to wait for the recommendation of the Advisory Board. They must independently and without delay decide on the representation of the detainee.
• The appellant contended that the decisions in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union Of India & Ors. [ (1991) 1 SCC 476 ] and Ankit Ashok Jalan vs Union Of India & Ors. [ (2020) 16 SCC 127 ], which state that the Central Government must wait for the decision of the Advisory Board, are in conflict with earlier Constitution Bench judgments in Pankaj Kumar Chakraborty And Ors. v. State of West Bengal [ (1969) 3 SCC 400 ] and Jayanarayan Sukul v State Of West Bengal [ (1970) 1 SCC 219 ]. The appellant argued that this conflict necessitates a reference to a larger bench.
• The appellant also contended that the documents provided as grounds for detention were illegible and in Chinese, thus violating his right to make an effective representation.

Arguments by the Respondents:

• The respondents argued that there is no conflict between the Pankaj Kumar Chakraborty case and the Ankit Ashok Jalan case. The decisions relied upon by the appellant were in the context of the Preventive Detention Act, while the Ankit Ashok Jalan case and Abdullah Kunhi case were in the context of the COFEPOSA Act.
• The respondents contended that under the COFEPOSA Act, the detaining authority and the Central Government are independent of each other. Therefore, the Central Government is mandated to wait for the decision of the Advisory Board, and the 60-day delay in considering the representation is not grounds to quash the detention order.

Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether there exists an incongruity between the Pankaj Kumar case and the Abdullah Kunhi Case, and if such a friction exists should the point of law be referred to a Larger Bench?
2. If there exists no friction between the two Constitutional judgments of this Court, can the impugned detention order be quashed on grounds of the 60-day delay in consideration of the representation made by the appellant?
3. Whether the illegible documents written in Chinese submitted to the appellant herein are grounds enough for quashing the impugned detention order?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the issue of the Central Government’s obligation to consider representations:

• Pankaj Kumar Chakraborty And Ors. v. State of West Bengal [ (1969) 3 SCC 400 ]: Supreme Court of India – Held that the government must act independently of the Advisory Board and that there is no mandate on the government to wait for the decision of the Advisory Board.
• Jayanarayan Sukul v State Of West Bengal [ (1970) 1 SCC 219 ]: Supreme Court of India – Reiterated that the Central Government must act independently of the Advisory Board.
• Haradhan Saha v. The State of West Bengal and Others [AIR 1974 SC 2154]: Supreme Court of India – Considered the distinction between the consideration of the representation made by the detenue in cases of preventive detention.
• Francis Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra & Ors. [ (1980) 2 SCC 275 ]: Supreme Court of India – Stated that when it was said that the Government must decide on the representation before forwarding it to the advisory board, the emphasis was not on time, but on the onus of the Government to decide the representation independently.
• K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union Of India & Ors. [ (1991) 1 SCC 476 ]: Supreme Court of India – Held that the Government must wait for the decision of the Advisory Board before making its decision on the representation.
• Ankit Ashok Jalan vs Union Of India & Ors. [ (2020) 16 SCC 127 ]: Supreme Court of India – Clarified the application of different judgments to different authorities under the COFEPOSA Act.

On the issue of illegible documents:

• Harikisan v. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. [ (1962) Supp. 2 SCR 918 ]: Supreme Court of India – Held that the detaining authority must explain the grounds of detention to the detainee and provide the material in a language the detainee understands.
• Gian Chand v. Union Of India & Anr. [ (Crl.) 39 of 2011 ]: Supreme Court of India – Held that in cases where a similarly placed co-detenue has already been granted the relief of a quashing of the detention order, the principle of parity must apply.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right of a detainee to be informed of the grounds of detention and to make a representation against it.
• Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974: Outlines the power to make detention orders for preventing activities prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange or smuggling.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court considered the following authorities and their application:

• Pankaj Kumar Chakraborty And Ors. v. State of West Bengal [ (1969) 3 SCC 400 ]: [Followed] The court followed the principle that the government must act independently of the Advisory Board, but clarified that this applies to the detaining authority, not the Central Government under COFEPOSA.
• Jayanarayan Sukul v State Of West Bengal [ (1970) 1 SCC 219 ]: [Followed] The court reiterated the principle that the Central Government must act independently of the Advisory Board, but clarified that this applies to the detaining authority, not the Central Government under COFEPOSA.
• Haradhan Saha v. The State of West Bengal and Others [AIR 1974 SC 2154]: [Followed] The Court followed the distinction between the consideration of the representation made by the detenue in cases of preventive detention.
• Francis Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra & Ors. [ (1980) 2 SCC 275 ]: [Followed] The court agreed with the principle that the emphasis was not on the point of time but on the requirement that the Government should consider the representation independently of the Board.
• K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union Of India & Ors. [ (1991) 1 SCC 476 ]: [Followed] The court followed the principle that the Government must wait for the decision of the Advisory Board before making its decision on the representation, under COFEPOSA Act.
• Ankit Ashok Jalan vs Union Of India & Ors. [ (2020) 16 SCC 127 ]: [Followed] The court followed the principle that clarified the application of different judgments to different authorities under the COFEPOSA Act.
• Harikisan v. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. [ (1962) Supp. 2 SCR 918 ]: [Followed] The court followed the principle that the detaining authority must explain the grounds of detention to the detainee and provide the material in a language the detainee understands.
• Gian Chand v. Union Of India & Anr. [ (Crl.) 39 of 2011 ]: [Followed] The court followed the principle that in cases where a similarly placed co-detenue has already been granted the relief of a quashing of the detention order, the principle of parity must apply.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principles of natural justice and the protection of individual liberties, particularly in the context of preventive detention. The court emphasized that procedural irregularities must be viewed in favor of the detainee. The court’s reasoning was driven by the following key points:

• Protection of Individual Liberties: The court stressed that preventive detention laws are a colonial legacy and have the potential to be misused. Any law that confers arbitrary powers to the state must be critically examined and used only in the rarest of rare cases.
• Procedural Fairness: The court highlighted that even the slightest errors in procedural compliances must result in favor of the detainee. This is because preventive detention is not for a crime committed but for a potential crime, and thus, the benefit of the doubt must always be in favor of the detainee.
• Right to Effective Representation: The court emphasized that a detainee must understand the grounds of their detention to make an effective representation. Supplying illegible documents in a foreign language violates this right.
• Principle of Parity: The court noted that a co-detainee in a similar situation had already been granted relief by the High Court. Therefore, the principle of parity required that the same relief be extended to the appellant.

The court’s reasoning reflects a strong commitment to upholding constitutional safeguards and ensuring that the state’s power to detain individuals is exercised with utmost care and adherence to due process.

Sentiment Analysis Ranking:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Incongruity between Pankaj Kumar and Abdullah Kunhi cases

Issue 2: Quashing detention due to 60-day delay

Issue 3: Illegible documents as grounds for detention

Key Takeaways

• Strict Adherence to Procedure: The judgment emphasizes the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases. Any lapse in procedure must be viewed in favor of the detainee.
• Right to Understand Grounds of Detention: Detainees have a fundamental right to understand the grounds for their detention. The provision of illegible documents violates this right.
• Independent Consideration of Representation: The detaining authority must consider the representation of the detainee independently and expeditiously. However, the Central Government, under the COFEPOSA Act, is allowed to wait for the Advisory Board’s decision.
• Principle of Parity: In cases where a co-detainee has been granted relief in similar circumstances, the principle of parity must be applied.

Potential Future Impact:

• This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in preventive detention cases and sets a precedent for the strict scrutiny of detention orders.
• It highlights the need for authorities to ensure that detainees are provided with clear and understandable grounds for their detention, and that their representations are considered promptly and independently.
• The judgment may lead to a more cautious approach by authorities in issuing detention orders and a greater emphasis on protecting the rights of detainees.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the impugned detention order against Pramod Singla was liable to be set aside.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of preventive detention, the detaining authority must ensure that the detainee is provided with legible documents in a language they understand, and that the detainee’s representation is considered promptly and independently. Additionally, the principle of parity must be applied in cases where co-detainees have been granted relief in similar circumstances.

Change in Previous Positions of Law: This judgment clarifies the application of the principles laid down in Pankaj Kumar Chakraborty and Abdullah Kunhi in the context of the COFEPOSA Act. It establishes that the detaining authority must act independently of the Advisory Board, while the Central Government is permitted to wait for the Advisory Board’s decision. The judgment also reinforces the principle that the supply of illegible documents violates the detainee’s right to make an effective representation, thus expanding the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in Pramod Singla vs. Union of India & Ors., quashed the detention order against Pramod Singla due to the supply of illegible documents as grounds for his detention. The court clarified the obligations of the detaining authority and the Central Government in considering representations under the COFEPOSA Act. The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, the right to make an effective representation, and the principle of parity in preventive detention cases. This judgment serves as a reminder of the need for strict adherence to constitutional safeguards when exercising the power of preventive detention.