LEGAL ISSUE: Whether non-supply of relied upon documents and delay in considering the representation of a detenu vitiates a detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA).
CASE TYPE: Preventive Detention Law
Case Name: Jaseela Shaji vs. Union of India & Ors.
Judgment Date: 12 September 2024
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 12 September 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 683
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Can a detention order be upheld if the detenu is not provided with all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority? 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). The court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards in preventive detention laws, ensuring that a detenu’s right to make an effective representation is not compromised. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individual liberties against arbitrary state action. The judgment was authored by Justice B.R. Gavai, on behalf of a three-judge bench.
Case Background
The appellant, Jaseela Shaji, is the wife of Appisseril Kochu Mohammed Shaji (referred to as “the detenu”). The detenu was ordered to be detained on 31st August 2023, under the COFEPOSA, to prevent him from engaging in activities prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. He was taken into custody on 2nd September 2023, and placed in Central Prisons, Poojapura, Trivandrum, Kerala. The grounds of detention, along with the relied-upon documents, were served on him on 6th September 2023. The detenu made representations to the Detaining Authority, the Central Government, and the Advisory Board. However, the representations sent through the jail authorities via ordinary post were not received by the Detaining Authority or the Central Government. The Advisory Board, however, opined that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. Consequently, the Central Government confirmed the detention order on 28th November 2023, ordering the detenu to be detained for one year from 2nd September 2023. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a habeas corpus petition before the High Court of Kerala, which was dismissed on 4th March 2024. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 31st August 2023 | Detention order passed under COFEPOSA. |
| 2nd September 2023 | Detenu taken into custody. |
| 6th September 2023 | Grounds of detention and relied-upon documents served on the detenu. |
| 27th September 2023 | Detenu submits representations to the Detaining Authority, Central Government, and Advisory Board through Jail Authorities. |
| 28th November 2023 | Central Government confirms the detention order. |
| 4th March 2024 | Kerala High Court dismisses the habeas corpus petition. |
| 11th June 2024 | Detaining Authority rejects the representation of the detenu. |
| 12th June 2024 | Central Government rejects the representation of the detenu. |
| 31st July 2024 | Supreme Court allows the appeal, quashing the detention order. |
| 12th September 2024 | Supreme Court releases the detailed judgment. |
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The material against the detenu was insufficient to warrant detention. The Detaining Authority did not properly apply its mind to the material.
- The statements of Ms. Preetha Pradeep, which were relied upon by the Detaining Authority, were not provided to the detenu. This violated the detenu’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
- The detenu’s representations were not received by the Detaining Authority and the Central Government due to the negligence of the Jail Authorities, and the delay in deciding the representations also violated the detenu’s rights.
- The Central Government’s rejection of the representation was not based on a proper consideration and lacked reasons.
- The High Court erred in holding that the Detaining Authority could have arrived at its subjective satisfaction even without the statements of Ms. Preetha Pradeep.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The Detaining Authority had sufficient material, including the statement of Suresh Babu and WhatsApp messages, to conclude that the detenu was engaged in illegal foreign currency transactions.
- The Advisory Board had opined that there were sufficient grounds for the detention.
- Even if the statements of Ms. Preetha Pradeep were excluded, the Detaining Authority could have arrived at the same subjective satisfaction.
- Section 5A of COFEPOSA allows for the detention order to be sustained on other grounds, even if one ground is not sustainable.
- It is not necessary to provide copies of every document, only those relied upon by the Detaining Authority.
- There was no delay in deciding the representations, as they were only received after the notice was issued by the Supreme Court.
Submissions by Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission (Appellant) | Sub-Submission (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of Detention Order |
|
|
| Non-supply of Documents |
|
|
| Delay in Representation |
|
|
| Central Government’s Consideration |
|
|
| High Court’s Findings |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the non-supply of the statements of Ms. Preetha Pradeep affected the detenu’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the non-receipt of the representation and the delay in deciding the representation by the Detaining Authority and the Central Government also affected the detenu’s right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Non-supply of Preetha Pradeep’s statements | Detention order quashed | The statements were crucial for the Detaining Authority’s subjective satisfaction, and their non-supply violated Article 22(5). |
| Non-receipt and delay in deciding representation | Detention order quashed | The delay of 9 months and the casual approach of the Jail Authorities violated the detenu’s right to a speedy consideration of their representation. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | Legal Point | How it was used by the court |
|---|---|---|---|
| M. Ahamedkutty vs. Union of India and another [(1990) 2 SCC 1] | Supreme Court of India | Non-supply of documents relied upon in the grounds of detention violates Article 22(5). | The Court relied on this case to reiterate that the detenu has a right to be furnished with the grounds of detention along with the documents so referred to or relied on. |
| Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran vs. State of T.N. and others [(2000) 9 SCC 170] | Supreme Court of India | Copies of only relied-upon documents need to be supplied to the detenu. | The Court referred to this case to clarify that not every document mentioned needs to be supplied, but only those relied upon by the detaining authority. |
| J. Abdul Hakeem vs. State of T.N. and others [(2005) 7 SCC 70] | Supreme Court of India | Non-supply of a document is prejudicial if it hampers the detenu’s right to make a representation. | The Court used this case to emphasize that the crux of the matter is whether the detenu’s right to make a representation is hampered by non-supply of a particular document. |
| State of Tamil Nadu and another vs. Abdullah Kadher Batcha and another [(2009) 1 SCC 333] | Supreme Court of India | Non-supply of documents is prejudicial if it affects the detenu’s ability to make an effective representation. | The Court cited this case to highlight that the court must examine whether the non-supply of any document is prejudicial to the case of the detenu. |
| Union of India vs. Ranu Bhandari [(2008) 17 SCC 348] | Supreme Court of India | All material relied upon by the detaining authority must be supplied to the detenu. | The Court referred to this case to emphasize that all the material relied upon by the detaining authority must be supplied to the detenu to enable them to make an effective representation. |
| Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others [(1981) 1 SCC 416] | Supreme Court of India | Delay in communicating the representation of the detenu demonstrates gross negligence. | The Court used this case to highlight the importance of speedy communication of the detenu’s representation. |
| Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab and others [(1981) 4 SCC 481] | Supreme Court of India | Failure to forward the detenu’s representation deprives the detenu of a valuable right. | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the failure to forward the detenu’s representation to the Central Government deprived the detenu of a valuable right. |
| Vijay Kumar vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others [(1982) 2 SCC 43] | Supreme Court of India | Delay in transmitting and deciding the representation vitiates the detention order. | The Court cited this case to highlight that any delay in transmitting the representation and deciding the same, if not properly explained, would invalidate the detention order. |
| Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik vs. Union of India and others [(1989) 3 SCC 277] | Supreme Court of India | Intermediary authorities must act promptly in transmitting the representation. | The Court used this case to emphasize that the intermediary authorities must move with promptitude to ensure the representation reaches the government. |
| B. Alamelu vs. State of T.N. and others [(1995) 1 SCC 306] | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated the position of law as laid down in the case of Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik. | The Court used this case to reiterate the position of law as laid down in the case of Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik. |
| Vakil Singh vs. The State of J & K and another [(1975) 3 SCC 545] | Supreme Court of India | Grounds must contain the pith and substance of primary facts, not subsidiary facts. | The Court distinguished this case, noting it did not concern the non-supply of relied-upon material. |
| L.M.S. Ummu Saleema vs. B.B. Gujaral [(1981) 3 SCC 317] | Supreme Court of India | It is unnecessary to furnish copies of documents to which casual reference is made. | The Court clarified that it is not necessary to furnish copies of each and every document to which a casual or passing reference is made. |
| A. Sowkath Ali vs. Union of India and others [(2000) 7 SCC 148] | Supreme Court of India | Section 5A of COFEPOSA applies where the detention is based on more than one ground. | The Court distinguished this case, stating that it applies where detention is based on multiple grounds, not multiple materials for a single ground. |
| Section 3, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 | Statute | Prohibits dealing in foreign exchange without permission from the Reserve Bank of India. | The Court referred to this section to highlight the illegality of the detenu’s actions. |
| Section 4, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 | Statute | Prohibits acquiring, holding, or transferring foreign exchange without authorization. | The Court referred to this section to highlight the illegality of the detenu’s actions. |
| Article 22(5), Constitution of India | Constitution | Guarantees the right of a detenu to be informed of the grounds of detention and to make a representation. | The Court emphasized the importance of this constitutional safeguard in the context of preventive detention. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: Insufficient material for detention and non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority. | The Court did not delve into this argument, as the detention order was quashed on other grounds. |
| Appellant’s Submission: Non-supply of Ms. Preetha Pradeep’s statements violated Article 22(5). | The Court upheld this argument, stating that the statements were crucial and their non-supply affected the detenu’s right to make an effective representation. |
| Appellant’s Submission: Delay in receiving and deciding the representation violated detenu’s rights. | The Court upheld this argument, noting the gross negligence of the Jail Authorities and the delay in deciding the representation. |
| Appellant’s Submission: Central Government’s rejection lacked proper consideration. | The Court did not delve into this argument, as the detention order was quashed on other grounds. |
| Appellant’s Submission: High Court erred in upholding detention despite non-supply of documents. | The Court agreed with this submission and quashed the High Court’s order. |
| Respondent’s Submission: Sufficient material for detention and proper application of mind. | The Court did not accept this argument as the detention order was quashed on other grounds. |
| Respondent’s Submission: Not necessary to provide every document, only relied upon ones. | The Court clarified that while not every document needs to be provided, all relied-upon documents must be supplied. |
| Respondent’s Submission: No delay in deciding representations. | The Court rejected this argument, noting the delay caused by the negligence of the Jail Authorities and the subsequent delay by the Detaining Authority and Central Government. |
| Respondent’s Submission: Advisory Board found sufficient grounds for detention. | The Court held that the Advisory Board’s opinion does not absolve the authorities from their duty to promptly consider the detenu’s representation. |
| Respondent’s Submission: High Court correctly held that detention was valid even without Preetha Pradeep’s statements. | The Court rejected this argument. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- M. Ahamedkutty vs. Union of India and another [(1990) 2 SCC 1]*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize the constitutional requirement of supplying all relied-upon documents to the detenu.
- Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran vs. State of T.N. and others [(2000) 9 SCC 170]*: The Court clarified the scope of documents to be supplied based on this authority, stating that only relied-upon documents are necessary.
- J. Abdul Hakeem vs. State of T.N. and others [(2005) 7 SCC 70]*: The Court reiterated the importance of the detenu’s right to make an effective representation based on this authority.
- State of Tamil Nadu and another vs. Abdullah Kadher Batcha and another [(2009) 1 SCC 333]*: The Court highlighted the need to examine if non-supply of a document prejudices the detenu, as stated in this authority.
- Union of India vs. Ranu Bhandari [(2008) 17 SCC 348]*: The Court emphasized the need to supply all relied-upon material to the detenu, as stated in this authority.
- Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others [(1981) 1 SCC 416]*: The Court followed this authority to highlight the significance of speedy communication of the detenu’s representation.
- Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab and others [(1981) 4 SCC 481]*: The Court relied on this authority to emphasize the importance of forwarding the detenu’s representation to the Central Government.
- Vijay Kumar vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others [(1982) 2 SCC 43]*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize that any delay in transmitting the representation and deciding the same, if not properly explained, would invalidate the detention order.
- Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik vs. Union of India and others [(1989) 3 SCC 277]*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize the need for intermediary authorities to act promptly in transmitting the representation.
- B. Alamelu vs. State of T.N. and others [(1995) 1 SCC 306]*: The Court reiterated the position of law as laid down in the case of Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik.
- Vakil Singh vs. The State of J & K and another [(1975) 3 SCC 545]*: The Court distinguished this case, noting it did not concern the non-supply of relied-upon material.
- L.M.S. Ummu Saleema vs. B.B. Gujaral [(1981) 3 SCC 317]*: The Court clarified that it is not necessary to furnish copies of each and every document to which a casual or passing reference is made.
- A. Sowkath Ali vs. Union of India and others [(2000) 7 SCC 148]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it applies where detention is based on multiple grounds, not multiple materials for a single ground.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the procedural safeguards provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that the right to personal liberty is a cherished right and that preventive detention laws, which curtail this right, must be strictly construed. The Court’s reasoning focused on two main aspects:
- Non-supply of Documents: The Court found that the statements of Ms. Preetha Pradeep were crucial to the Detaining Authority’s subjective satisfaction. The non-supply of these statements violated the detenu’s right to make an effective representation. The Court reiterated that all documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority must be provided to the detenu, regardless of whether the detenu was aware of their contents.
- Delay in Deciding the Representation: The Court was critical of the casual and negligent approach of the Jail Authorities in handling the detenu’s representation. The delay of approximately nine months in deciding the representation was deemed unacceptable. The Court emphasized that the authorities have a constitutional obligation to decide such representations with utmost expedition.
The Court’s sentiment was clearly in favor of protecting the detenu’s fundamental rights and ensuring that the procedural safeguards under preventive detention laws are strictly followed. The Court’s reasoning was based on a consistent line of precedent that emphasizes the importance of personal liberty and the need to adhere to constitutional mandates.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Protection of Detenu’s Rights | 40% |
| Adherence to Procedural Safeguards | 30% |
| Criticism of Negligence by Authorities | 20% |
| Emphasis on Personal Liberty | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The analysis indicates that the Court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations (70%) than by factual aspects of the case (30%). This highlights the Court’s emphasis on upholding legal principles and constitutional safeguards over the specific details of the detenu’s alleged illegal activities. The Court focused on the procedural lapses and violations of fundamental rights rather than the merits of the case.
Logical Reasoning
Issue 1: Non-supply of Preetha Pradeep’s statements
Detaining Authority relied on Preetha Pradeep’s statements
Statements were not supplied to the detenu
Non-supply affected detenu’s right to make an effective representation
Violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution
Detention order quashed
Issue 2: Non-receipt and delay in deciding representation
Detenu submitted representation on 27th September 2023
Jail Authorities sent representation via ordinary post
Representation not received by Detaining Authority or Central Government
Delay of 9 months in deciding the representation
Violation of detenu’s right to speedy consideration
Detention order quashed
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory Supply of Documents: Detaining authorities must provide all relied-upon documents to the detenu to ensure an effective representation. Failure to do so will invalidate the detention order.
- Prompt Action by Jail Authorities: Jail authorities must ensure that the detenu’s representations are promptly transmitted to the appropriate authorities. Casual or negligent handling of representations will not be tolerated.
- Speedy Consideration of Representations: The Detaining Authority and the Central Government must consider and decide the detenu’s representations with utmost expedition. Any undue delay will be viewed as a violation of the detenu’s rights.
- Protection of Personal Liberty: The judgment reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protecting personal liberty and ensuring that preventive detention laws are not used arbitrarily.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- The appeal was allowed.
- The judgment and order of the High Court dated 4th March 2024 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1271 of 2023 was quashed and set aside.
- The order dated 31st August 2023 passed by the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) to the Government of India directing the detention of the detenu was quashed and set aside.
- The order dated 28th November 2023 passed by the Under Secretary, Government of India confirming the detention order of the detenu – Appisseril Kochu Mohammed Shaji (Shaji A.K.) was quashed and set aside.
- The detenu was directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that non-supply of relied upon documents and a delay in the consideration of the representation by the detaining authority will vitiate the detention order. This case reaffirms the established position of law regarding the procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases. It emphasizes the need for strict adherence to the constitutional requirements under Article 22(5), particularly the right to make an effective representation. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of procedural fairness and the protection of individual liberties.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Jaseela Shaji vs. Union of India underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in preventive detention laws. The Court quashed the detention order due to the non-supply of relied-upon documents and the significant delay in considering the detenu’s representation. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder to detaining authorities andjail authorities of their constitutional obligations to ensure fairness and due process in preventive detention cases. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the protection of personal liberty and the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law.
Source: Jaseela Shaji vs. Union of India