Supreme Court quashes detention order for illegible documents in preventive detention case: State of Manipur vs. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19 October 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 922

Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C.T. Ravikumar

Can a detention order be upheld if the detenu was provided with illegible copies of the documents relied upon for their detention? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning preventive detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The court examined whether the failure to provide legible documents infringes upon the detenu’s fundamental right to make an effective representation, as guaranteed by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The case involves two appeals against decisions of the High Court of Manipur, which had set aside detention orders issued under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The High Court’s decisions were based on the premise that the detaining authorities failed to provide legible copies of the documents relied upon when issuing the detention orders. The detenu, Buyamayum Abdul Hanan, was subjected to preventive detention. The detenu argued that the illegible documents prevented him from making an effective representation against his detention, violating his fundamental rights.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees certain rights to individuals under preventive detention. This provision states:

“When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.”

The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this article to mean that a detenu has the right to be informed of the grounds of their detention and to be given a fair chance to make a representation against it. This includes the right to access all relevant documents in a legible format.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The State of Manipur argued that all relevant documents were supplied to the detenu.
• They contended that the detenu never raised any objection about the illegibility of the documents before the detaining authority.
• The appellants submitted that the detenu should have requested clearer copies if the documents were indeed illegible.
• The State argued that the High Court’s interference was not legally sustainable because the detenu did not raise the issue of illegible documents with the detaining authority.

Respondent’s Arguments (Amicus Curiae):

• The Amicus Curiae, representing the detenu, argued that the supply of legible copies of documents is a fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
• The Amicus Curiae submitted that the detenu’s inability to make an effective representation due to illegible documents is a violation of Article 22(5).
• It was argued that the detenu’s failure to raise the issue with the detaining authority does not negate their fundamental right to challenge the detention order.
• The Amicus Curiae supported the High Court’s decision to set aside the detention order.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the supply of illegible copies of documents relied upon by the detaining authority, which has deprived the detenu of making an effective representation, is in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court relied on several previous judgments to support its decision. These cases established the importance of providing legible documents to detainees to ensure their right to make an effective representation.

The Court also considered the following legal provision:

• Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India: This provision guarantees the right of a detenu to be informed of the grounds of detention and to make a representation against the detention order.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Smt. Dharmista Bhagat v. State of Karnataka & Another [1989 Supp (2) SCC 155]*: The Court relied on this case to highlight the importance of legible documents for effective representation.
• Manjit Singh Grewal @ Gogi v. Union of India & Ors. [1990 (Supp.) SCC 59]*: This case was used to support the view that illegible documents violate the detenu’s right to make an effective representation.
• Mehrunissa v. State of Maharashtra [(1981) 2 SCC 709]*: The Court cited this case to emphasize that the right to make a representation is a fundamental right.
• Bhupinder Singh v. Union of India & Others [(1987) 2 SCC 234]*: This case was used to support the view that non-supply of legible documents violates Article 22(5).
• Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union of India and Others [(1980) 2 SCC 270]*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that detenu is entitled to obtain information relating to the grounds of detention.
• Union of India v. Ranu Bhandari [(2008) 17 SCC 348]*: This case was cited to highlight that all material relied upon by the detaining authority must be supplied to the detenu.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fundamental principle that the right to make an effective representation is a cornerstone of personal liberty. The Court emphasized that this right cannot be undermined by procedural lapses, such as providing illegible documents. The Court’s reasoning focused on ensuring that preventive detention laws, which are considered an “evil necessity,” do not become instruments of oppression. The Court highlighted that the detenu’s right to make an effective representation is paramount and cannot be compromised.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the detenu should have raised the issue of illegible documents with the detaining authority but rejected it. The Court reasoned that the fundamental right to an effective representation cannot be waived by such procedural omissions. The Court also noted that the State did not deny that the documents were illegible, which further strengthened the detenu’s case. The Court’s decision was based on the principle that the procedure established by law for preventive detention must be strictly followed to protect individual liberties.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The right to make representation is a fundamental right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and supply of the illegible copy of documents which has been relied upon by the detaining authority indeed has deprived him in making an effective representation.”

“The right of personal liberty and individual freedom which is probably the most cherished is not, in any manner, arbitrarily to be taken away from him even temporarily without following the procedure prescribed by law.”

“The detenu is always entitled to be supplied with the legible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority and such information made in the grounds of detention enables him to make an effective representation.”

Key Takeaways

• The supply of legible documents is a mandatory requirement for preventive detention.
• Failure to provide legible documents violates the detenu’s fundamental right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
• Detenus are not required to raise the issue of illegible documents with the detaining authority before challenging the detention order in court.
• The State must ensure that all documents relied upon for detention are clear and readable to enable the detenu to make an informed representation.
• This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards in preventive detention laws.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court, other than dismissing the appeals.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion on any specific amendment in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the supply of legible documents is a fundamental requirement for preventive detention, and failure to do so violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The judgment reinforces the existing legal position that the right to make an effective representation is a cornerstone of personal liberty. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court has reaffirmed the same.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Manipur vs. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan reaffirms the critical importance of providing legible documents to detainees in preventive detention cases. The Court held that the failure to supply clear and readable documents violates the detenu’s fundamental right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. This decision underscores the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards in preventive detention laws and ensures that individual liberties are not compromised.