Mangalbhai Motiram Patel Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors [1980] INSC 191 (26 September 1980)
SEN, A.P. (J) SEN, A.P. (J) BHAGWATI, P.N.
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
CITATION: 1981 AIR 510 1981 SCR (1) 852 1980
SCC (4) 470
CITATOR INFO :
R 1981 SC2161 (16) R 1987 SC1748 (13)
ACT:
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974-Section 3-Constitutional
imperatives in cases of detention-Delay in supplying copies of documents, if
vitiates the order of detention.
HEADNOTE:
1. The constitutional imperatives indicated
in Art.
22(5) are: firstly, the detaining authority
must, as soon as practicable, after the detention, communicate to the detenu
the grounds on which the order of detention has been made and secondly, the
detaining authority must afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making a
representation against the order of detention. [855D]
2. The right to make a representation implies
what it means 'the right of making an effective re-presentation'.
Where certain documents are relied upon in
the grounds of detention the grounds would be incomplete without such
documents. The detenu has the right to be furnished with the grounds of
detention along with the documents relied upon.
[855E]
3. By a long line of decisions, this Court
has on a construction of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution read with section 3(3)
of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities
Act, 1974 held that the right of making an effective representation carries
with it the right to have the documents relied upon in the grounds of detention
furnished without unreasonable delay. Failure to supply the documents within a
reasonable time is tantamount to denial of the right of making representation
and renders the continued detention invalid. [855H] Ramchandra A. Kamat v.
Union of India [1980] 2 SCR 1072, Frances Coralie Mullin v. W. C. Khambra
[1980] 2 SCR 1095, Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India, [1981] 1 S. C.
R. 642 Pritam Nath Hoon v. Union of India W.P. [1981] 1 S. C. R. 684 referred
to.
4. The detaining authority must keep ready
all the documents relevant to the grounds of detention and expeditiously
furnish copies thereof to the detenu on demand for making a representation. In
the instant case, the State Government acted in a cavalier fashion in dealing
with the detenu's application for copies of all the relevant documents. The
detaining authority failed to apply his mind and abdicated his functions of
supplying the copies of documents on which the order of detention was based. He
passed on the papers to the Collector of Customs, who in his turn referred the
matter to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. Even after the replies were
received the documents were lying in the Mantralaya for 9 days without being
placed before 853 the detaining authority. No reasonable explanation is
furnished for this delay. There was unexplained delay of 43 days in supplying
copies of such documents. The continued detention was thus bad. [858H-859F]
5. When the liberty of the subject is
involved whether under the Preventive Detention Act or the Maintenance of
Internal Security Act or the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Activities Act or any other law providing for preventive detention,
it is the bounden duty of the Court to satisfy itself that all the safeguards
provided by the law have been scrupulously observed and that the subject is not
deprived of his personal liberty otherwise than in accordance with law.
[861H] Narendra Purshotam Umrao v. B. B.
Gujral & Ors. [1979] 2 SCR 315 referred to.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl.)
No. 724 of 1980.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution Ram
Jethmalani and Miss Rani Jethmalani for the petitioner.
M. N. Phadke and M. N. Shroff for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SEN J.-This petition for the grant of writ of Habeas Corpus is for the release
of one Bhalabhai Motiram Patel, who has been detained by an order of the State
Government of Maharashtra dated February 12, 1980 under sub-s. (1) of s. 3 of
the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities
Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on being satisfied that it was
necessary to detain him 'with a view to preventing him from abetting the
smuggling of goods and engaging in transport of smuggled goods'. At the
conclusion of the hearing on July 30, 1980 we made an order for the release of
the detenu since we were of the view that his 'continued detention' was
invalid. We now proceed to give reasons there for.
The facts emerging from the grounds of
detention are that the detenu was acting as a 'courier' between Messrs S.K.
Malhotra Imports & Exports, Brussels having a widespread network abroad and
Messrs Apex Distributors, Bombay who were engaged in a criminal conspiracy to
smuggle contraband goods on a wide scale.
It was conceded at the Bar that the grounds
for detention set out the facts with sufficient degree of particularity and
they did furnish sufficient nexus for forming subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority.
The order of detention was, therefore, not
challenged on the ground that the grounds furnished were not adequate or
sufficient for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, or for making of an
effective representation.
854 In support of the petition, two points
are raised challenging the validity of the 'continued detention' of the detenu
both on procedural grounds, namely (1) there was undue delay in furnishing the
documents, statements and writings referred to and relied upon in the order of
detention to enable the detenu to prepare or cause to be prepared his
representation against the said order of detention and (2) there was a failure
on the part of the Central Government within a reasonable time to consider and
deal with his application for revocation of the detention order under sub-s.(1)
of s.11 of the Act.
On February 12, 1980 the State Government of
Maharashtra served the detenu with an order of detention issued under sub-s.(1)
of s.3 of the Act and directed that he shall be detained in the Central Jail,
Nagpur. Along with the order of detention, he was served with the grounds for
detention. The detenu through his solicitors' letter dated March 8, 1980,
addressed to the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home
Department, Bombay made a request that 'all the documents, statements, and
writings' referred to and relied upon in the detention order, be furnished to
him, to enable him to prepare or cause to be prepared his representation
against such detention. It was received in the Home Department, Mantralaya,
Bombay on March 10, 1980. On March 13, 1980, the Under Secretary to the Home
Department forwarded the letter to the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay
'for his comments'. On the basis of the request of the Home Department the
Assistant Collector of Customs addressed a letter to the Deputy Director of
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay on March 15, 1980 for his comments.
On March 18, 1980 the Assistant Director, Revenue Intelligence wrote a letter
to the Assistant Collector of Customs conveying the decision of the Directorate
of Revenue Intelligence to supply the detenu with copies of the documents on
which the order of detention was based, and the documents were forwarded for
onward transmission to the Home Department 'for doing the needful'.
The letter was received by the Assistant
Collector of Customs on March 19, 1980. On the same day i.e. March 19, 1980,
the Assistant Collector of Customs sent a letter to the Joint Secretary, Home
Department (Special) conveying the decision of the Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence to supply copies and also forwarded a set of documents for being
supplied to the detenu. The case was put up before the Secretary to the
Government, Home Department (Transport) on March 25, 1980. On March 26, 1980
the Secretary directed that the detenu be furnished with the documents on which
his order of detention was based. Eventually, the documents were sent to the
detenu's solicitors on March 27, 1980 by registered post and were received by
them on April 1, 1980.
But 855 the detenu's solicitors in the
meanwhile, had already submitted an incomplete representation against the order
of detention on March 31, 1980.
The Courts have always viewed with disfavour
the detention without trial whatever be the nature of offence.
The detention of individuals without trial
for any length of time, however short, is wholly inconsistent with the basic
ideas of our Government. This has always been the view consistently taken by
this Court in a series of decisions.
It is not necessary to burden this judgment
with citations of these decisions. We say and we think it is necessary to
repeat, that the gravity of the evil to the community resulting from
anti-social activities can never furnish an adequate reason for invading the
personal liberty of a citizen except in accordance with the procedure
established by law.
This Court has forged certain procedural
safeguards in the case of preventive detention of citizens. The constitutional
imperatives indicated in Art. 22(5) are two- fold: (1) the detaining authority
must, as soon as may be, that is, as soon as practicable, after the detention,
communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been
made, and (2) the detaining authority must afford the detenu the earliest
opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. The
right to make a representation implies what it means 'the right of making an
effective representation'. Where certain documents are relied upon in the
grounds of detention the grounds would be incomplete without such documents.
The detenu, therefore, has the right to be furnished with the grounds of
detention along with the documents relied upon.
The power of preventive detention by the
Government under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act, 1974 is necessarily subject to the limitation enjoined on the
exercise of such power by Art.
22(5) of the Constitution, as construed by
this Court.
The case raises the fundamental issue: Who is
to be arbiter of what the Constitution says ? In matters relating to preventive
detention, the Executive is subject to the Court's authority. The Court, not
the Executive, has the 'ultimate authority' to interpret the law. Although the
Executive has large potential powers, limitations and restraints on that power
are built into the Constitution.
In a series of decisions, this Court has, on
a construction of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution, read with sub-s.(3) of s.3 of
the Act, held that 'the right of making an effective representation' carries
with it the right to have the documents relied upon in the grounds of 856
detention: Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union of India, Frances Coralie Mullin v. W.
C. Khambra, Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria v.
Union of India and Pritam Nath Hoon v. Union
of India. In Kamat's case it is laid down that if there is undue delay in
furnishing the statements and documents relied upon in the grounds of
detention, the right to make an effective representation is denied, and the
detention becomes illegal.
It was observed:
"The right to make a representation is a
fundamental right. The representation thus made should be considered
expeditiously by the government. In order to make an effective representation,
the detenu is entitled to obtain information relating to the grounds of
detention. When the grounds of detention are served on the detenu, he is
entitled to ask for copies of the statements and documents referred to in the
grounds of detention to enable him to make an effective representation. When the
detenu makes a request for such documents, they should be supplied to him
expeditiously. The detaining authority in preparing the grounds would have
referred to the statements and documents relied on in the grounds of detention
and would be ordinarily available with him-when copies of such documents are
asked for by the detenu the detaining authority should be in a position to
supply them with reasonable expedition. What is reasonable expedition will
depend on the facts of each case.
It is the duty of the detaining authority to
satisfactorily explain the delay, if any, in furnishing of these documents.
If there is undue delay in furnishing the
statements and documents referred to in the grounds of detention the right to
make effective representation is denied. The detention cannot be said to be
according to the procedure prescribed by law. When the Act contemplates the
furnishing of grounds of detention ordinarily within five days of the order of
detention, the intention is clear that the statements and documents which are
referred to in the grounds of detention and which are required by the detenu
and are expected to be in possession of the detaining authority should be
furnished with reasonable expedition." 857 The rationale of the decision
is that the right to be supplied with copies of the documents, statements and
other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention without any undue delay
flows directly as a necessary corollary from the right conferred on the detenu
to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the
detention, because unless the former right is available the latter cannot be
meaningfully exercised.
In Frances Coralie Mullin's case the Court,
however, added a note of caution:
"..the time-imperative can never be
absolute or obsessive. The Court's observations are not to be so
understood." The nature of the constitutional obligation to furnish the
statements and documents relied upon in the grounds of detention to enable the
detenu to make an effective representation against his detention under Art.
22(5) read with sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the Act has been reiterated in Smt. Icchu
Devi Choraria's case and Pritam Nath Hoon's case.
In Smt. Choraria's case one of us, Bhagwati
J., has dealt with the question at some length, and he observes:
"It will be seen that one of the basic
requirements of clause (5) of Article 22 is that the authority making the order
of detention must, as soon as may be, communicate to the detenu the grounds on
which the order of detention has been made and under sub-section (3) of section
3 of the COFEPOSA Act, the words "as soon as may be" have been
translated to mean "ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional
circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing not later than fifteen
days, from the date of detention." The grounds of detention must therefore
be furnished to the detenu ordinarily within five days from the date of
detention, but in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in
writing, the time for furnishing the grounds of detention may stand extended
but in any event it cannot be later than fifteen days from the date of
detention." Having pointed out the two outside time-limits provided by
sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the Act, he further says:
"Now it is obvious that when clause (5)
of Article 22 and sub-section (3) of section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act provide that
the grounds of detention should be communicated to the detenu within five or
fifteen days, as the case may be, what is meant is that the grounds of
detention in their entirety must be 858 furnished to the detenu. If there are
any documents, statements or other materials relied upon in the grounds of
detention, they must also be communicated to the detenu, because being
incorporated in the grounds of detention, they form part of the grounds and the
grounds furnished to the detenu cannot be said to be complete without them.
* * * * * There can therefore be no doubt
that on a proper construction of clause (5) of Article 22 read with section 3,
sub-section (3) of the COFEPOSA Act, it is necessary for the valid continuance
of detention that subject to clause (6) of Article 22 copies of the documents,
statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention should
be furnished to the detenu alongwith the grounds of detention or in any event
not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be
recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days from the date of detention. If
this requirement of clause (5) of Article 22 read with section 3, sub-section
(3) is not satisfied, the continued detention of the detenu would be illegal
and void." Alternatively, he observes:
"It may be pointed out that even if our
interpretation of the words "the grounds on which the order has been
made" in clause (5) of Article 22 and section 3 sub-section (3) of the
COFEPOSA Act be wrong and these words do not include the documents, statements,
and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention, it is
unquestionable that copies of such documents, statements and other materials
must be supplied to the detenu without any unreasonable delay, because
otherwise the detenu would not be able to make an effective representation and
the fundamental right conferred on him to be afforded the earliest opportunity
of making a representation against his detention would be denied to him."
We refrain from expressing any final opinion on the construction placed in Smt.
Choraria's case on sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the Act.
In spite of this Court's decision in
Ramchandra A. Kamat case (supra) holding that a detenu is entitled under Art.
22(5) of the Constitution read with sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the Act, to be served
with copies of all the relevant documents relied upon in the grounds of
detention, it is somewhat strange that the State Government acted in a cavalier
fashion in dealing with the detenu's application to be 859 supplied with copies
of such documents. What makes it worse is that in utter defiance of this
Court's decision in Kamat's case. P. V. Nayak, Secretary to the Government of
Maharashtra, Home Department (Transport) to whom the powers of making an order
of detention under sub-s. (3) of s. 3 have been delegated under the Rules of
Business and is, therefore, the detaining authority, should have come forward
with a counter-affidavit dated June 13, 1980 stating:
"I deny that I was under constitutional
obligation to supply the documents and statements relied upon in the grounds of
detention. I say that the grounds of detention were elaborate, precise and
clear and the copies of the documents and statements were not necessary for
making an effective representation." This shows lack of awareness of his
constitutional obligation. What followed is not difficult to understand.
Though the detenu's letter dated March 8,
1980 making a request for being furnished with copies of 'all documents,
statements and writings', upon which the detention order was based, was
admittedly received in the Mantralaya on March 10, 1980 the Under-Secretary,
Home Department instead of acting upon that request within a reasonable time,
forwarded the application to the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay 'for
his comments' on March 13, 1980. On the basis of the request of the Home
Department, the Assistant Collector of Customs addressed a letter to the Deputy
Director of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay, on March 15, 1980
'for his comments'.
It, therefore, appears that the Secretary to
the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Transport), who was the detaining
authority, failed to apply his mind and abdicated his functions of supplying
the copies of documents on which the order of detention was based, to the
Collector of Customs, who in his turn referred the matter to the Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence. The decision of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
to supply the copies was conveyed to the Home Department on March 19, 1980; and
on the same day, the Assistant Collector of Customs forwarded a set of the
relevant documents to the Home Department. The documents were admittedly lying
in the Mantralaya from March 19, 1980 to March 27, 1980, i.e., for nine days.
The application of the detenu for grant of copies was, however, not placed
before the Secretary, Home Department till March 25, 1980 and he was not
furnished with copies till April 1, 1980 leaving him with no other alternative
but to make his representation without having an opportunity to peruse the
documents and make his submissions with reference to them.
860 From the narration of facts, it is quite
obvious that no one really wanted to take a decision in the matter of grant of
copies. The Secretary to the Government, Home Department (Transport) left the
decision to the Collector of Customs (Preventive), who left it to the
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. We could understand if the Collector of
Customs had sworn an affidavit explaining the reason why he could not attend to
the matter between March 13, 1980 and March 19, 1980 i.e., for seven days.
Further, there is no explanation whatever forthcoming for the delay between
March 19, 1980 when the documents were received in the Home Department and
March 25,1980 when the application of the detenu was put up before the
Secretary to the Government, Home Department for orders.
When the matter came up for hearing before
one of us, Venkatramiah J., as the Vacation Judge, on June 17, 1980, the State
Government was directed to file an affidavit explaining the time spent between
March 10, 1980 and March 27, 1980 since there was no explanation forthcoming in
the affidavit dated June 13, 1980 sworn by C. L. Mulherkar, Deputy Secretary to
the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special). In furtherance of
that direction, B.
S. Shetye, Desk Officer, Home Department
(Special) has sworn an affidavit dated June 18, 1980 to the effect:
"On 18th March 1980 a letter was
addressed by the Assistant Director, D.R.I. to the Assistant Collector of
Customs informing him about the decision to give copies and the copies of the
statements, etc. were forwarded to the Customs for onward transmission to the
Home Department of Maharashtra Govt. for doing the needful. The said letter
dated 18th March, 1980 was received by the Assistant Collector of Customs on
19th March, 1980. On the same day i.e. 19th March, 1980 the Assistant Collector
of Customs addressed a letter to the Joint Secretary, Home Department
(Special), Mantralaya, Bombay to communicate the decision of the D.R.I. to
supply copies and also forwarded a set of relevant documents for being supplied
to M/s. Mahimtura and Company.
I say that the Home Department received the
said letter and the copies of the documents on 19th March 1980. On 21st March,
1980, after scrutiny the case was submitted to the Secretary, Home Department
(Transport), Mantralaya, Bombay by the Assistant through concerned officers. I
say that 22nd March, 1980 and 23rd March, 1980 were holidays in Maharashtra as
22nd March, 1980 was 4th Saturday and 23rd March was Sunday. 24th March, 1980
was an optional holiday on 861 account of Chaitra Sud 15. The case was,
therefore, put up to the Secretary on 25th March, 1980 by the Deputy Secretary.
A formal decision to supply the copies was necessary and there fore the case
was put up before the Secretary on 25th March, 1980. On 26th March, 1980 the
Secretary, Home Department (Transport) accepted the request of the detenu's
advocate for supply of copies." He goes on to explain that it is not the
practice of the Home Department to retain the documents or copies thereof,
after an order of detention is passed. According to him, the documents were
taken away by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and no
copies were made or retained by the Home Department.
This reflects a sad state of affairs in the
Home Department. When the law enjoins the detaining authority by sub-s. (3) of
s. 3 of the Act to serve the detenu with the grounds of detention within five
days of the making of the order of detention, it is reasonable to expect that
the Home Department would retain the documents or have copies made thereof for
being supplied to the detenu, if asked for, for the purpose of making his
representation. The Government must evolve some process by which the
requirements of Art.
22(5) of the Constitution read with sub-s.
(3) of s. 3 of the Act can be complied with as expeditiously as possible.
The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 is enacted to serve a laudable
object. It is a measure to prevent smuggling of goods into or out of India and
to check diversion of foreign exchange by immobilising the persons engaged in
smuggling, foreign exchange racketeering and related activities by preventive
detention of such persons. Violations of foreign exchange regulations and
smuggling activities are having an increasingly deleterious effect on the
national economy and thereby a serious adverse effect on the security of the
State. Such economic offences disrupt the economic life of the community as a
whole. It is necessary to protect the basic economic order of the nation.
Nevertheless, the Act is a law relating to preventive detention. That being so,
the power of detention exercisable under sub-s. (1) of s. 3 of the Act is
subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution. As observed by this
Court in Narendra Purshotam Umrao v. B. B. Gujral & Ors. when the liberty
of the subject is involved, whether it is under the Preventive Detention Act or
the Maintenance of Internal Security Act or the Conservation of Foreign
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act or any other law providing
for preventive detention:
862 "It is the bounden duty of the Court
to satisfy itself that all the safeguards provided by the law have been
scrupulously observed and that the subject is not deprived of his personal
liberty otherwise than in accordance with law." The community has a vital
interest in the proper enforcement of its laws, particularly in an area such as
conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities in
dealing effectively with persons engaged in such smuggling and foreign exchange
racketeering by ordering their preventive detention and at the same time, in
assuring that the law is not used arbitrarily to suppress the citizen of his
right to life and liberty. The Government must, therefore, ensure that the
constitutional safeguards of Art.
22(5) read with sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the Act
are fully complied with.
In the view we take of this case, the
question whether there was such unreasonable delay in disposal of the detenu's
application for revocation made under sub-s. (1) of s. 11 of the Act as to
render his continued detention invalid is, in any event, basically irrelevant.
For these reasons, the order of detention
passed by the State Government of Maharashtra dated February 12, 1980 detaining Bhalabhai Motiram Patel under sub-s. (1) of s. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 is set aside. There
shall be no order as to costs.
P.B.R. Petition allowed.
Back
