LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a detention order can be quashed if the documents provided to the detainee are illegible and in a foreign language.
CASE TYPE: Preventive Detention Law
Case Name: Pramod Singla vs. Union of India & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 10th April, 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 10th April, 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 329
Judges: Krishna Murari, J. and V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Can a person be detained based on documents they cannot read or understand? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving preventive detention. The Court emphasized that providing illegible documents in a foreign language to a detainee violates their fundamental rights. This judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness in cases of preventive detention. The bench comprised of Justices Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian.
Case Background
The case revolves around the detention of Pramod Singla, who was suspected of involvement in a gold smuggling syndicate. Based on intelligence reports, authorities believed that gold was being smuggled into India through air cargo, concealed in transformers of electroplating/reworking machines.
On November 18 and 19, 2021, officials examined a consignment at the Delhi Cargo Complex, recovering 80.126 kgs of 24-carat gold worth Rs. 39,31,38,219. Following this, a search of Pramod Singla’s shop led to the recovery of 7 gold pieces weighing 5.409 kgs, valued at Rs. 2,64,44,680.
The authorities also conducted searches at four other locations linked to the syndicate, arresting four foreign nationals. On November 20, 2021, Pramod Singla and other members of the syndicate were arrested and subsequently remanded to judicial custody.
Singla was granted bail on December 13, 2021. Subsequently, on January 19, 2022, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) proposed a detention order against Singla under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA). The detention order was issued on February 1, 2022, and Singla was re-arrested on February 4, 2022.
Singla made a representation to the detaining authority on March 2, 2022, which was rejected on March 15, 2022. He also made a representation to the Central Government on March 10, 2022, which was rejected on May 9, 2022, after a delay of 60 days.
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 the demise of his father, and he was later released due to the expiry of the detention order.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 18-19 Nov, 2021 | 80.126 kgs of gold seized at Delhi Cargo Complex. |
| 19 Nov, 2021 | 7 pieces of gold weighing 5.409 kgs recovered from Appellant’s shop. |
| 20 Nov, 2021 | Appellant and other syndicate members arrested. |
| 13 Dec, 2021 | Appellant granted bail by CMM, Patiala House Courts. |
| 21 Dec, 2021 | Four foreign nationals and co-accused Neeraj Varshney granted bail. |
| 19 Jan, 2022 | DRI sends proposal to issue detention order under COFEPOSA Act. |
| 01 Feb, 2022 | Detention order passed against the appellant. |
| 04 Feb, 2022 | Appellant arrested by DRI. |
| 24 Feb, 2022 | Reference made to Central Advisory Board, Delhi High Court. |
| 02 Mar, 2022 | Appellant sends representation to detaining authority. |
| 10 Mar, 2022 | Appellant sends representation to Central Government. |
| 15 Mar, 2022 | Representation to detaining authority rejected. |
| 04 Apr, 2022 | Appellant makes representation to Advisory Board. |
| 18 Apr, 2022 | Hearing before Advisory Board concluded. |
| 09 May, 2022 | Central Government rejects representation after a delay of 60 days. |
| 03 Nov, 2022 | High Court dismisses writ petition seeking to quash detention order. |
| 05 Jan, 2023 | Supreme Court releases appellant on interim relief. |
Arguments
The appellant argued that the detention order should be quashed on the following grounds:
-
Delay in Considering Representation: Article 22(5) of the Constitution mandates that a representation made by a detainee in cases of preventive detention must be considered at the earliest. An inordinate delay in considering the representation is sufficient grounds for setting aside the detention order.
-
Central Government’s Obligation: The Central Government must act independently and without delay in deciding the representation of the detainee, without waiting for the recommendation of the Advisory Board.
-
Conflict in Judgments: The appellant contended that the decisions of the Supreme Court 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 direct contravention with the Constitution Bench judgments of the Supreme Court 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]. This conflict necessitates a referral to a larger bench.
-
Illegible Documents: The documents supplied to the appellant as grounds for his preventive detention were illegible and in Chinese, thereby violating his right to make an effective representation.
Arguments Advanced by the Respondents
The respondents, represented by the Learned ASG, Mr. K.M Natraj, argued:
-
No Incongruity Between Judgments: There is no conflict between the Pankaj Kumar case [(1969) 3 SCC 400] and the Ashok Jalan case [(2020) 16 SCC 127]. The decisions relied upon by the appellant are in the context of the Preventive Detention Act, whereas the Ashok Jalan case [(2020) 16 SCC 127] and Abdullah Kunhi case [(1991) 1 SCC 476] are in the context of the COFEPOSA Act. There is a distinction between the detaining authority and the central government under the COFEPOSA Act.
-
Central Government’s Mandate: As per the Ashok Jalan Case [(2020) 16 SCC 127], because the detaining authority and the central government are independent of each other under the COFEPOSA Act, the central government is mandated to wait for the decision of the Advisory Board. Therefore, the delay of 60 days in considering the representation is not grounds for quashing the detention order.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submission | Respondent’s Sub-Submission |
|---|---|---|
| Delay in Considering Representation | Article 22(5) mandates speedy consideration; delay is grounds for quashing. | Delay of 60 days is justified as Central Government waited for Advisory Board’s decision. |
| Central Government’s Obligation | Central Government must act independently and without delay. | Under COFEPOSA, Central Government must wait for Advisory Board’s decision. |
| Conflict in Judgments | Conflict between Pankaj Kumar case [(1969) 3 SCC 400] and Abdullah Kunhi case [(1991) 1 SCC 476] requires referral to a larger bench. | No conflict exists as Pankaj Kumar case [(1969) 3 SCC 400] applies to Preventive Detention Act, while Abdullah Kunhi case [(1991) 1 SCC 476] applies to COFEPOSA. |
| Illegible Documents | Documents supplied were illegible and in Chinese, violating right to effective representation. | No specific response in the source. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether there exists an incongruity between the Pankaj Kumar case [(1969) 3 SCC 400] and the Abdullah Kunhi Case [(1991) 1 SCC 476], and if such a conflict exists, should the point of law be referred to a Larger Bench?
- If there exists no conflict 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?
- 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
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Incongruity between Pankaj Kumar case [(1969) 3 SCC 400] and Abdullah Kunhi Case [(1991) 1 SCC 476] | No Incongruity Exists | The judgments apply to different authorities under the COFEPOSA Act; Pankaj Kumar case [(1969) 3 SCC 400] applies to detaining authority, and Abdullah Kunhi Case [(1991) 1 SCC 476] applies to the Central Government. |
| Quashing detention order due to 60-day delay | Detention order cannot be quashed on this ground | Both detaining authority and Government acted within established procedure; detaining authority decided without waiting for the Advisory Board, while the Government waited for the Advisory Board’s decision. |
| Illegible documents as grounds for quashing | Detention order quashed | Illegible documents in a foreign language violate the detainee’s right to make an effective representation, and the principle of parity applies as a co-detainee was granted relief on similar grounds. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
On the Right to Representation and Government’s Obligation
- Pankaj Kumar Chakraborty And Ors. v. State of West Bengal [(1969) 3 SCC 400] – Supreme Court of India: The Government must act independently of the Advisory Board and does not need to wait for its decision before considering the detainee’s representation.
- Jayanarayan Sukul v State Of West Bengal [(1970) 1 SCC 219] – Supreme Court of India: Reiterated the principles in the Pankaj Kumar case [(1969) 3 SCC 400], holding that the government must act independently of the Advisory Board.
- Harardhan Saha v. The State of West Bengal [(1975) 3 SCC 198] – Supreme Court of India: Clarified that if a representation is made before the matter is referred to the Advisory Board, the detaining authority must consider it. If made after, the detaining authority considers it before sending it to the Advisory Board.
- Francis Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra & Ors. [(1980) 2 SCC 275] – Supreme Court of India: Emphasized that the government must consider the representation independently of the Advisory Board, focusing on the government’s onus rather than time.
- 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 Pankaj Kumar case [(1969) 3 SCC 400] and Abdullah Kunhi case [(1991) 1 SCC 476] to different authorities under COFEPOSA.
On Illegible Documents
- Harikisan v. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. [(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 918] – Supreme Court of India: The detaining authority must explain the grounds of detention to the detainee in a language they understand.
On Principle of Parity
- Gian Chand v. Union Of India & Anr. [(Crl.) 39 of 2011] – Supreme Court of India: In cases where a similarly placed co-detainee has been granted relief, the principle of parity must apply.
On the distinction between the two Acts
- Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel vs Union Of India & Ors. [(1995) 4 SCC 51] – Supreme Court of India: The scheme of the COFEPOSA Act differs from other preventive detention laws, such as the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
Authorities Table
| Authority | Court | How it was viewed |
|---|---|---|
| Pankaj Kumar Chakraborty And Ors. v. State of West Bengal [(1969) 3 SCC 400] | Supreme Court of India | Followed in principle, but distinguished in application to the Central Government under COFEPOSA. |
| Jayanarayan Sukul v State Of West Bengal [(1970) 1 SCC 219] | Supreme Court of India | Followed and reiterated. |
| Harardhan Saha v. The State of West Bengal [(1975) 3 SCC 198] | Supreme Court of India | Followed to distinguish between representations made before and after the matter is referred to the Advisory Board. |
| Francis Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra & Ors. [(1980) 2 SCC 275] | Supreme Court of India | Approved and followed. |
| K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union Of India & Ors. [(1991) 1 SCC 476] | Supreme Court of India | Followed in the context of the Central Government under COFEPOSA. |
| Ankit Ashok Jalan vs Union Of India & Ors. [(2020) 16 SCC 127] | Supreme Court of India | Followed to clarify the application of Pankaj Kumar case [(1969) 3 SCC 400] and Abdullah Kunhi case [(1991) 1 SCC 476]. |
| Harikisan v. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. [(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 918] | Supreme Court of India | Followed. |
| Gian Chand v. Union Of India & Anr. [(Crl.) 39 of 2011] | Supreme Court of India | Followed. |
| Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel vs Union Of India & Ors. [(1995) 4 SCC 51] | Supreme Court of India | Followed to show the distinction between the two Acts. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by both parties and the relevant legal precedents to arrive at its decision.
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that delay in considering representation is grounds for quashing | Rejected. The Court held that the Central Government was justified in waiting for the Advisory Board’s decision, as per Abdullah Kunhi case [(1991) 1 SCC 476]. |
| Appellant’s submission that the Central Government must act independently and without delay | Partially accepted. The Court clarified that this applies to the detaining authority, not the Central Government under COFEPOSA. |
| Appellant’s submission that there is a conflict between Pankaj Kumar case [(1969) 3 SCC 400] and Abdullah Kunhi case [(1991) 1 SCC 476] | Rejected. The Court held that the judgments apply to different authorities under COFEPOSA. |
| Appellant’s submission that illegible documents are grounds for quashing | Accepted. The Court held that providing illegible documents in a foreign language violates the detainee’s right to make an effective representation. |
| Respondent’s submission that there is no incongruity between the judgments | Accepted. The Court held that there is no conflict between the judgments. |
| Respondent’s submission that the Central Government must wait for the Advisory Board’s decision | Accepted. The Court held that under COFEPOSA, the Central Government is mandated to wait for the Advisory Board’s decision. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Pankaj Kumar Chakraborty And Ors. v. State of West Bengal [(1969) 3 SCC 400]: The Court followed the principle that the government must act independently, but clarified that it applies to the detaining authority, not the Central Government under COFEPOSA.
- Jayanarayan Sukul v State Of West Bengal [(1970) 1 SCC 219]: The Court reiterated the principle that the government must act independently of the Advisory Board.
- Harardhan Saha v. The State of West Bengal [(1975) 3 SCC 198]: The Court used this case to distinguish between representations made before and after the matter is referred to the Advisory Board.
- Francis Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra & Ors. [(1980) 2 SCC 275]: The Court approved and followed this case, emphasizing that the government must consider the representation independently.
- K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union Of India & Ors. [(1991) 1 SCC 476]: The Court followed this case, holding that the Central Government under COFEPOSA must wait for the Advisory Board’s decision.
- Ankit Ashok Jalan vs Union Of India & Ors. [(2020) 16 SCC 127]: The Court followed this case to clarify the application of Pankaj Kumar case [(1969) 3 SCC 400] and Abdullah Kunhi case [(1991) 1 SCC 476] to different authorities under COFEPOSA.
- Harikisan v. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. [(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 918]: The Court followed this case, emphasizing the need for the detaining authority to explain the grounds of detention in a language the detainee understands.
- Gian Chand v. Union Of India & Anr. [(Crl.) 39 of 2011]: The Court followed this case, applying the principle of parity.
- Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel vs Union Of India & Ors. [(1995) 4 SCC 51]: The Court followed this case to show the distinction between the two Acts.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The need to protect individual liberties, especially in cases of preventive detention, where the powers of the state are significant.
- The importance of procedural fairness, ensuring that every procedural rigidity is followed by the government.
- The principle that every lapse in procedure must benefit the detainee.
- The violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, due to the supply of illegible documents.
- The principle of parity, as a co-detainee had already been granted relief on similar grounds.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Protection of individual liberties | 30% |
| Importance of procedural fairness | 30% |
| Benefit of doubt to the detainee | 20% |
| Violation of Article 22(5) | 10% |
| Principle of parity | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (consideration of factual aspects) | 30% |
| Law (consideration of legal aspects) | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
Issue 1: Conflict between Judgments
Issue 2: Delay in Consideration
Issue 3: Illegible Documents
Final Order
The Supreme Court, after considering all the facts and circumstances, passed the following order:
The Court held that the detention order was liable to be quashed because the documents supplied to the appellant were illegible and in a foreign language, thus violating the detainee’s right to make an effective representation.
The Court held that there was no conflict between the judgments of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Kumar Chakraborty And Ors. v. State of West Bengal [(1969) 3 SCC 400] and K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union Of India & Ors. [(1991) 1 SCC 476]. The Court held that the Pankaj Kumar case [(1969) 3 SCC 400] applies to the detaining authority, while the Abdullah Kunhi case [(1991) 1 SCC 476] applies to the Central Government.
The Court also held that the delay of 60 days in considering the representation by the Central Government was not a ground for quashing the detention order, as the Central Government was mandated to wait for the Advisory Board’s decision.
The Court observed that the principle of parity applied in this case, as a co-detainee had been granted relief on similar grounds.
Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the detention order.
Source: Pramod Singla vs. Union of India