Supreme Court of India
JASEELA SHAJIversusTHE UNION OF INDIA & ORS
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 683
- Decided
- 12 September 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
A detention order is vitiated if the detaining authority fails to furnish to the detenu all documents relied upon for the order, and if the detenu’s representation is not transmitted and decided expeditiously, thereby breaching Article 22(5).
Summary
The appellant, Jaseela Shaji, challenged the preventive detention of her husband under COFEPOSA, arguing that the detaining authority failed to provide the statement of Ms. Preetha Pradeep, a material document relied upon for the detention, thereby violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution. She also contended that the detenu’s representation was not received by the detaining authority or the Central Government and that there was an inordinate delay of about nine months in deciding the representation. The Supreme Court held that any document on which the detaining authority relies must be furnished to the detenu to enable an effective representation, and the non‑supply of Ms. Preetha’s statements vitiated the detention order. The Court further found that the casual and negligent handling of the detenu’s representation by prison authorities, coupled with the delay in its consideration, breached the constitutional guarantee of a speedy decision. Consequently, the detention order was declared invalid and set aside. The Court ordered the immediate release of the detenu and quashed the High Court’s earlier judgment.
Issues considered
- The non‑supply of the statement of the person alleging the detenu’s foreign‑exchange dealings affects the detenu’s right to make an effective representation under Art. 22(5).
- Whether the non‑receipt and delayed consideration of the detenu’s representation by the Detaining Authority and the Central Government violate Art. 22(5).
Legislation cited
Subjects
Right of the detenu to make an effective representation u/Art. 22(5)Non-receipt of the representationDelay in deciding the representation by Detaining Authority and Central GovernmentDetention orderAugmentation of foreign exchangeViolation of the fundamental rightSubjective satisfaction by Detaining AuthorityCasual, callous and negligent approach of Prison AuthoritiesTechnological developmentImportance of personal liberty and individual freedomJudicial deprecationValuable right of detenu
Judgment
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 313 : 2024 INSC 683
Jaseela Shaji
v.
The Union of India & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 3083 of 2024)
12 September 2024
[B.R. Gavai,* Prashant Kumar Mishra and
K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as to whether the non-supply of the statement of the
person stating about the detenu’s dealing in foreign exchange
to the detenu, has affected the right of the detenu to make an
effective representation u/Art. 22(5); and whether non-receipt of
the representation and the delay in deciding the representation by
the Detaining Authority and the Central Government would affect
the right of detenu u/Art.22(5) of the Constitution.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art. 22(5) – Protection against arrest
and detention – Right of the detenu to make an effective
representation – Detention order u/s. 3(1) of the COFEPOSA
directing detention of the detenu to prevent him from acting
in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign
exchange in future – Non-supply of the statement of the
person stating about the detenu’s dealing in foreign exchange,
to the detenu – Also, non-receipt of the representation and
the delay in deciding the representation by the Detaining
Authority and the Central Government – Effect of, on right
of the detenu u/Art. 22(5):
Held: Though it may not be necessary to furnish copies of each
and every document to which a casual or passing reference has
been made by the Detaining Authority in making the order of
detention, it is imperative that every such document which has
been relied on by the Detaining Authority and which affects the
right of the detenu to make an effective representation u/Art.
22(5) has to be supplied to the detenu – Failure to furnish copies
* Author
314 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of such documents as relied on by the Detaining Authority would
amount to violation of the fundamental right guaranteed u/Art.
22(5) – Eight factual aspects were taken into consideration by
the Detaining Authority while arriving at its subjective satisfaction
that the detenu has been engaging himself in activities which
adversely affected the augmentation of foreign exchange
resources of the country – Statement of the said person is a vital
link for transactions involving the detenu – It cannot be said that
the statements of the said person are just a casual or a passing
reference, on the contrary, they formed the basis for arriving at
a subjective satisfaction by the Detaining Authority – Documents
relied on by the Detaining Authority which form the basis of
the material facts which have been taken into consideration to
form a chain of events could not be severed and the High Court
was not justified in coming to a finding that despite eschewing
of certain material taken into consideration by the Detaining
Authority, the detention order can be sustained by holding that
the Detaining Authority would have arrived at such a subjective
satisfaction even without such material – Non-supply of the
statements of the said person affected the right of the detenu to
make an effective representation u/Art. 22(5) and as such, the
detention is vitiated on the said ground – As regards, non-receipt
of the representation and delay in deciding the representation
by the Detaining Authority and the Central Government, on
account of casual, callous and negligent approach of the Prison
Authorities, the representation of the detenu could not reach
to the Detaining Authority and the Central Government within
a reasonable period – There was about nine months’ delay in
deciding the representation – Even otherwise, there has been a
delay of 27/20 days on the part of the Central Government and
the Detaining Authority in deciding the representation when it
was called from the Prison Authorities after notice was issued –
No explanation as to what caused such a delay in deciding the
said representations – On mere casual or callous and, negligent
approach on the part of the Jail Authorities in communicating
the representation of the detenu, the valuable right available to
detenu to have his representation decided expeditiously cannot
be denied – Prison Authorities to ensure that the representations
are sent to Competent Authorities immediately after the receipt
thereof – In the present era of technological development,
the representation can be sent through email within a day –
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 315
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
Competent Authority to decide the representation with utmost
expedition so that the valuable right guaranteed to detenu u/
Art. 22(5) is not denied – Thus, detention order liable to be
quashed and set aside – Judgment and order of the High Court
quashed and set aside – Conservation of Foreign Exchange
and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – S.3(1).
[Paras 25, 33, 36, 39, 40, 42, 44, 58, 63, 68-72].
Constitution of India – Art. 22(5) – Protection against arrest
and detention – Importance of personal liberty and individual
freedom:
Held: Though the concept of personal liberty and individual freedom
can be curtailed by preventive detention laws, the Courts have to
ensure that the right to personal liberty and individual freedom
is not arbitrarily taken away even temporarily without following
the procedure prescribed by law – In the matters pertaining to
personal liberty of the citizens, the Authorities are enjoined with a
constitutional obligation to decide the representation with utmost
expedition – Each day’s delay matters in such a case – When
a detention order is passed all the material relied upon by the
detaining authority in making such an order must be supplied to
the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation –
This is required in order to comply with the mandate of Art. 22
(5), irrespective of whether the detenu had knowledge of such
material or not. [Para 32]
Judicial deprecation – Detention order – Prompt transmission
of the representation of the detenu to the Authorities
concerned – Breach of:
Held: Practice of the Prison authorities in dealing with the valuable
right of the detenu in such a casual manner is deprecated –
State Government must gear up its own machinery to ensure
that the representation is transmitted quickly; it reaches the
Central Government as quickly as possible and is decided
expeditiously – On facts, the law laid down by this Court has been
given a go-bye – Though the Jail Authorities informed that the
representations of the detenu were sent through ordinary post,
the same were neither received by the Detaining Authority nor the
Central Government – Jail Authorities ought to have ensured that
the representation of the detenu reaches the concerned Authorities
at the earliest. [Paras 65-67]
316 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and others [2023] 11 SCR
958 : (2023) 9 SCC 587; M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India and
another [1990] 1 SCR 209 : (1990) 2 SCC 1; Radhakrishnan
Prabhakaran v. State of T.N. and others (2000) 9 SCC 170; J. Abdul
Hakeem v. State of T.N. and others (2005) 7 SCC 70; State of
Tamil Nadu and another v. Abdullah Kadher Batcha and another
[2008] 15 SCR 1099 : (2009) 1 SCC 333; Union of India v. Ranu
Bhandari [2008] 13 SCR 582 : (2008) 17 SCC 348; Tara Chand
v. State of Rajasthan and others (1981) 1 SCC 416; Rattan Singh
v. State of Punjab and others [1982] 1 SCR 1010 : (1981) 4 SCC
481; Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others [1982] 3
SCR 522 : (1982) 2 SCC 43; Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v.
Union of India and others [1989] 2 SCR 415 : (1989) 3 SCC 277;
B. Alamelu v. State of T.N. and others (1995) 1 SCC 306; Vakil
Singh v. The State of J & K and another (1975) 3 SCC 545; A.
Sowkath Ali v. Union of India and others [2000] Supp. 2 SCR 48 :
(2000) 7 SCC 148; L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. B.B. Gujaral [1981]
3 SCR 647 : (1981) 3 SCC 317– referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
List of Keywords
Right of the detenu to make an effective representation u/Art.
22(5); Non-receipt of the representation; Delay in deciding the
representation by Detaining Authority and Central Government;
Detention order; Augmentation of foreign exchange; Violation of the
fundamental right; Subjective satisfaction by Detaining Authority;
Casual, callous and negligent approach of Prison Authorities;
Technological development; Importance of personal liberty and
individual freedom; Judicial deprecation; Valuable right of detenu.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3083
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2024 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in WPCRL No. 1271 of 2023
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 317
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
Appearances for Parties
Shinoj K. Narayanan, Vishnu Pazhanganat, Abid Ali Beeran,
K. Rajeev, Ms. Niveditha R Menon, Pranav Krishna, Aditya Verma,
Tarun Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv., Gurmeet Singh Makker, Siddharth Sinha,
Santosh Kumar, Aditya Shankar Dixit, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs.
for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.
1. The appellant, who is the wife of one Appisseril Kochu Mohammed
Shaji (Shaji A.K.),1 has approached this Court being aggrieved by
the judgment and order dated 4th March 2024 passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 1271 of 2023,2 vide which it has dismissed the said
habeas corpus petition filed by the appellant for production of the
detenu, who was detained pursuant to the order of detention dated
31st August 20233 passed under the provisions of the Conservation of
Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.4
2. By order dated 31st of July 2024, this Court allowed the present
appeal; quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order
of the High Court dated 4th March 2024 in Writ Petition (Criminal)
No. 1271 of 2023 so also the order dated 31st August 2023 passed
by the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA), COFEPOSA Unit, Central
Economic Intelligence Bureau, Department of Revenue, Ministry of
Revenue, Government of India5 to the Government of India directing
the detention of the detenu and the order dated 28th November
2023 passed by the Under Secretary, COFEPOSA Wing, Central
Economic Intelligence Bureau, Department of Revenue, Ministry of
1 Hereinafter referred to as “detenu”.
2 “habeas corpus petition”
3 Hereinafter referred to as “detention order”
4 Hereinafter referred to as “COFEPOSA”
5 Hereinafter referred to as “Detaining Authority”
318 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Finance, Government of India6 confirming the detention order of the
detenu. We have directed that the detenu be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case. The reasons for the same are as under:
3. Shorn of details, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as
under:
3.1 The detention order dated 31st August 2023 was passed by
the Detaining Authority under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA,
thereby directing detention of the detenu with a view to prevent
him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation
of foreign exchange in future.
3.2 The detenu was taken into custody on 2nd September 2023
and put in detention in Central Prisons, Poojapura, Trivandrum,
Kerala.
3.3 The grounds of detention and the relied upon documents were
served on the detenu on 6th September 2023.
3.4 A perusal of the grounds of detention served on the detenu
would reveal that there are 12 grounds on the basis of which
the detention order dated 31st August 2023 came to be passed.
The Detaining Authority has relied on the following material for
arriving at its subjective satisfaction:
a) Statements of the detenu recorded on 20th June 2023, 11th
July 2023 and 17th July 2023 under Section 37 of FEMA;
b) Statement of Shri Suresh Babu recorded on 7th July 2023;
c) WhatsApp chats, voice calls, images recovered from the
mobile phone as also ‘paper slips’ allegedly recovered
from the detenu;
d) Statements of Ms. Preetha Pradeep recorded on 5th July
2023 and 6th July 2023.
3.5 In the grounds of detention, the detenu was further informed about
his right to make representation to the Detaining Authority as
well as the Chairman, COFEPOSA, Advisory Board, High Court
of Kerala7 and the Central Government through Jail Authorities.
6 Hereinafter referred to as “Central Government”
7 Hereinafter referred to as “Advisory Board”
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 319
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
3.6 Accordingly, the detenu had made representations to the
concerned Authorities i.e. the Detaining Authority, the Central
Government and the Advisory Board. It appears that the Jail
Authorities sent the said representations to the concerned
Authorities through the ordinary post. However, neither the
Detaining Authority nor the Central Government received the
said representations. Insofar as the representation made by
the detenu to the Advisory Board is concerned, the Advisory
Board opined that there was sufficient cause for detention of
the detenu. Hence the Central Government vide order dated
28th November 2023 confirmed the detention order and further
directed that the detenu be detained for a period of one year
from the date of his detention i.e. from 2nd September 2023.
3.7 Being aggrieved by the detention of the detenu, the appellant
herein approached the Kerala High Court by way of habeas
corpus petition being Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1271 of 2023.
By the impugned judgment and order dated 4th March 2024,
the said writ petition came to be rejected.
3.8 Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant has approached this
Court by way of present Appeal by special leave.
4. We have heard Shri Gaurav Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant and Shri Nachiketa Joshi, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondent(s).
5. Shri Gaurav Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel, submits that in the
present case, the material against the detenu could not have led any
reasonable person to come to the conclusion that there was a case
made out against the detenu to detain him. The Detaining Authority
has not applied his/her mind to the material in proper perspective
resulting in an unsustainable order of preventive detention. The
learned Senior Counsel in this respect relied on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana
and others.8
6. Shri Gaurav Aggarwal further submits that a perusal of the grounds
of detention dated 31st August 2023 would clearly show that the
8 [2023] 11 SCR 958 : (2023) 9 SCC 587
320 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
statements of Ms. Preetha Pradeep were relied upon by the Detaining
Authority while arriving at its subjective satisfaction. He submits that
the said statements were admittedly not provided to the detenu. It
is, therefore, submitted that non-supply of the material on which the
subjective satisfaction was arrived at would affect the right of the
detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India
to make an effective representation. It is, therefore, submitted that
the detention order is liable to be set aside on the said ground. The
learned Senior Counsel in this respect has relied on the following
judgments of this Court in the cases of:
(i) M. Ahamedkutty vs. Union of India and another;9
(ii) Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran vs. State of T.N. and others;10
(iii) J. Abdul Hakeem vs. State of T.N. and others11
(iv) State of Tamil Nadu and another vs. Abdullah Kadher Batcha
and another;12 and
(v) Union of India vs. Ranu Bhandari.13
7. Shri Gaurav Aggarwal further submits that the detenu had submitted
his representation on 27th September 2023 to the Jail Authorities
for onward transmission to the Detaining Authority and the Central
Government. He submits that a perusal of the counter affidavit
of the respondents would reveal that the Jail Authorities sent the
representations of the detenu by ordinary post, which could not be
traced. He submits that, in the counter affidavit it is admitted that the
said representations dated 27th September 2023 were not received by
the Detaining Authority and the Central Government, but after notice
was issued in the present matter, records were called for from the
Jail Authorities and the representations were rejected on 11th June
2024 and 12th June 2024 respectively. He submits that the delay
in transmitting the representations as well as the delay caused in
deciding the representations would also adversely affect the right of
the detenu for effective and speedy disposal of the representations
9 [1990] 1 SCR 209 : (1990) 2 SCC 1
10 (2000) 9 SCC 170
11 (2005) 7 SCC 70
12 [2008] 15 SCR 1099 : (2009) 1 SCC 333
13 [2008] 13 SCR 582 : (2008) 17 SCC 348
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 321
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
and on this count also the detention order is liable to be set aside.
In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel relied on
the following judgments of this Court:
(i) Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others;14
(ii) Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab and others;15
(iii) Vijay Kumar vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others;16
(iv) Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik vs. Union of India and
others;17
(v) B. Alamelu vs. State of T.N. and others;18
8. Shri Gaurav Aggarwal further submits that a perusal of the
Memorandum passed by the Central Government rejecting the
representation of the detenu would show that there was no real and
proper consideration. He submits that no reasons are recorded in the
Memorandum and, therefore, it does not reflect that there was a real
or proper consideration by the Government. He, therefore, submits
that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
9. Shri Aggarwal further submits that the High Court has erroneously
held that the Detaining Authority could have arrived at its subjective
satisfaction even after the statement of said Ms. Preetha Pradeep
was eschewed. It is submitted that the statement of Ms. Preetha
Pradeep was a pertinent material which, from the perusal of the
detention order would reveal, was duly taken into consideration by
the Detaining Authority. He, therefore, submits that the High Court
has erred in holding that non-supply of the statements of Ms. Preetha
Pradeep to the detenu did not vitiate the detention order. The learned
Senior Counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and
order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
10. Shri Nachiketa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents, on the contrary, submits that the Detaining Authority
after taking into consideration the statement of Suresh Babu and the
14 (1981) 1 SCC 416
15 [1982] 1 SCR 1010 : (1981) 4 SCC 481
16 [1982] 3 SCR 522 : (1982) 2 SCC 43
17 [1989] 2 SCR 415 : (1989) 3 SCC 277
18 (1995) 1 SCC 306
322 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
exchange of WhatsApp messages between Suresh Babu and the
detenu has rightly come to a subjective satisfaction that the detenu
was engaged in illegal transactions by way of purchase and sale
of illegally collected foreign currencies from NRIs and other foreign
exchange dealers. He submits that the perusal of the material on
record would show that the detenu has indulged himself in hawala
dealings, illegal purchase, sale and carriage of foreign currencies.
11. Shri Nachiketa Joshi further submits that as per the provisions
contained in Section 8(b) of the COFEPOSA, the case of detention
of the detenu was referred to the State Advisory Board, Kerala High
Court. The Advisory Board, after hearing the detenu and considering
the material, had opined that there were sufficient grounds for the
detention of the detenu.
12. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the High Court has rightly
held that even if the statements of Preethi Pradeep is eschewed, the
Detaining Authority could have arrived at the subjective satisfaction
that the detention of the detenu was necessary.
13. The learned Senior Counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in
the case of Vakil Singh vs. The State of J & K and another19 in
support of his submission that the grounds must contain the pith and
substance of primary facts but not subsidiary facts or evidential details.
14. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that in view of Section 5A
of the COFEPOSA, even if the detention order was not sustainable
on one ground, if it can be sustained on other grounds, the detention
order would not be vitiated. In this respect, he relies on the judgment
of this Court in the case of A. Sowkath Ali vs. Union of India and
others.20
15. Shri Nachiketa Joshi further submits that it is not necessary to furnish
copy of each and every documents to which casual or passing
reference may be made in the course of narration of facts and which
are not relied upon by the Detaining Authority in making the order
of detention. In this respect, he relies on the judgment of this Court
in the case of L.M.S. Ummu Saleema vs. B.B. Gujaral.21
19 (1975) 3 SCC 545
20 [2000] Supp. 2 SCR 48 : (2000) 7 SCC 148
21 [1981] 3 SCR 647 : (1981) 3 SCC 317
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 323
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
16. Insofar as the delay in deciding the representation by the Detaining
Authority and the Central Government is concerned, Shri Nachiketa
Joshi, learned Senior Counsel submits that representations made
by the detenu on 27th September 2023 were never received by the
Detaining Authority and the Central Government. However, after the
notice was issued by this Court in the present matter, the record was
called from the Jail Authorities and they decided the representations
on 11th June 2024 and 12th June 2024 respectively. He, therefore,
submits that there is no delay in deciding the representations by the
Detaining Authority or the Central Government.
CONSIDERATION
17. Though the detention order is assailed on several grounds, we
propose to consider only two grounds, viz.,
(a) As to whether the non-supply of the statements of Ms.
Preetha Pradeep has affected the right of the detenu to
make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of
the Constitution of India.
(b) As to whether non-receipt of the representation and the
delay in deciding the representation by the Detaining
Authority and the Central Government would also affect the
right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
(a) As to whether the non-supply of the statement of Ms.
Preetha Pradeep has affected the right of the detenu to
make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India
18. In the case of M. Ahamedkutty vs. Union of India and another
(supra), this Court was considering the issue as to whether non-supply
of the copies of the bail application and the bail order vitiated the right
of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. After
taking the survey of the earlier judgments, this Court observed thus:
“19. The next submission is that of non-supply of
the bail application and the bail order. This Court, as
was observed in Mangalbhai Motiram Patel v. State
of Maharashtra [(1980) 4 SCC 470: 1981 SCC (Cri)
49: (1981) 1 SCR 852] has ‘forged’ certain procedural
safeguards for citizens under preventive detention. The
324 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
constitutional imperatives in Article 22(5) are twofold:
(1) The detaining authority must, as soon as may
be, i.e. 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 the representation against the
order of detention. The right is to make an effective
representation and when some documents are referred
to or relied on in the grounds of detention, without
copies of such documents, the grounds of detention
would not be complete. The detenu has, therefore, the
right to be furnished with the grounds of detention
along with the documents so referred to or relied on.
If there is failure or even delay in furnishing those
documents it would amount to denial of the right
to make an effective representation. This has been
settled by a long line of decisions: Ramachandra A.
Kamat v. Union of India [(1980) 2 SCC 270 : 1980 SCC
(Cri) 414 : (1980) 2 SCR 1072], Frances Coralie Mullin v.
W.C. Khambra [(1980) 2 SCC 275 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 419 :
(1980) 2 SCR 1095], Ichhu Devi Choraria v. Union of India
[(1980) 4 SCC 531 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 25 : (1981) 1 SCR
640], Pritam Nath Hoon v. Union of India [(1980) 4 SCC
525 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 19 : (1981) 1 SCR 682], Tushar
Thakker v. Union of India [(1980) 4 SCC 499 : 1981 SCC
(Cri) 13], Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India [(1981)
2 SCC 427 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 463], Kirit Kumar Chaman
Lal Kundaliya v. Union of India [(1981) 2 SCC 436 : 1981
SCC (Cri) 471] and Ana Carolina D’Souza v. Union of
India [1981 Supp SCC 53 (1) : 1982 SCC (Cri) 131 (1)].
20. It is immaterial whether the detenu already knew
about their contents or not. In Mehrunissa v. State of
Maharashtra [(1981) 2 SCC 709 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 592] it
was held that the fact that the detenu was aware of the
contents of the documents not furnished was immaterial
and non-furnishing of the copy of the seizure list was held
to be fatal. To appreciate this point one has to bear in mind
that the detenu is in jail and has no access to his own
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 325
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
documents. In Mohd. Zakir v. Delhi Administration [(1982)
3 SCC 216 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 695] it was reiterated that it
being a constitutional imperative for the detaining authority
to give the documents relied on and referred to in the order
of detention pari passu the grounds of detention, those
should be furnished at the earliest so that the detenu could
make an effective representation immediately instead of
waiting for the documents to be supplied with. The question
of demanding the documents was wholly irrelevant and
the infirmity in that regard was violative of constitutional
safeguards enshrined in Article 22(5).”
[emphasis supplied]
19. It can thus be seen that this Court, in unequivocal terms, has
held that the constitutional requirements under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India are twofold, viz., (1) 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 (2) the Detaining Authority must afford the detenu the
earliest opportunity of making the representation against the order
of detention. It has further been held that the right is to make an
effective representation and when some documents are referred
to or relied on in the grounds of detention, without copies of such
documents, the grounds of detention would not be complete. In
unequivocal terms, it has been held that the detenu has the right to
be furnished with the grounds of detention along with the documents
so referred to or relied on. It has been held that failure or even delay
in furnishing those documents would amount to denial of the right
to make an effective representation.
20. This Court further went on to hold that it is immaterial whether
the detenu already knew about their contents or not. This Court
reiterated the position that it being a constitutional imperative for the
detaining authority to give the documents relied on and referred to
in the order of detention pari passu the grounds of detention. It has
been held that there is no question of demanding the documents.
21. The High Court in the impugned judgment and order has relied on
the judgments of this Court in the cases of Vakil Singh vs. State
of J. & K. and another (supra) and L.M.S. Ummu Saleema vs.
B.B. Gujaral (supra).
326 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
22. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in the case of Vakil Singh
(supra) is concerned, the detention order was challenged on the
following grounds:
(i) The impugned order was passed without application of mind;
(ii) Neither the grounds of detention nor the confirmation thereof
were communicated and explained to the detenu;
(iii) The grounds are vague; and
(iv) The order of detention, assuming it was served, was a colourable
act as the petitioner was already in jail.
23. It could thus be seen that the said case was not concerned with the
issue with regard to non-supply of the material which was relied on
by the Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention. As such the
said judgment would not be of any assistance to the case of the
respondents.
24. Insofar as the reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of
L.M.S. Ummu Saleema (supra) is concerned, the High Court relied
on the following observations of this Court:
“5. ….It is only failure to furnish copies of such documents
as were relied upon by the detaining authority, making it
difficult for the detenu to make an effective representation,
that amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights
guaranteed by Article 22(5). In our view it is unnecessary
to furnish copies of documents to which casual or passing
reference may be made in the course of narration of facts
and which are not relied upon by the detaining authority
in making the order of detention.”
25. There can be no doubt that it is not necessary to furnish copies of
each and every document to which a casual or passing reference
may be made in the narration of facts and which are not relied
upon by the Detaining Authority in making the order of detention.
However, failure to furnish copies of such document/documents as
is/are relied on by the Detaining Authority which would deprive the
detenu to make an effective representation would certainly amount
to violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5)
of the Constitution of India.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 327
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
26. We may also gainfully refer to the following observations of this Court
in the case of Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran (supra):
“8. We may make it clear that there is no legal requirement
that a copy of every document mentioned in the order shall
invariably be supplied to the detenu. What is important
is that copies of only such of those documents as have
been relied on by the detaining authority for reaching
the satisfaction that preventive detention of the detenu is
necessary shall be supplied to him…”
27. It could thus be seen that though this Court held that a copy of every
document mentioned in the order is not required to be supplied to
the detenu, copies of only such of those documents as have been
relied on by the detaining authority for reaching the satisfaction that
preventive detention of the detenu is necessary are required to be
supplied to him.
28. In the case of J. Abdul Hakeem (supra), the position was reiterated
by this Court by observing thus:
“8. …From the aforesaid authorities it is clear that the
detenu has a right to be supplied with the material
documents on which reliance is placed by the detaining
authority for passing the detention order but the detention
order will not be vitiated, if the document although referred
to in the order is not supplied which is not relied upon by
the detaining authority for forming of its opinion or was
made the basis for passing the order of detention. The crux
of the matter lies in whether the detenu's right to make a
representation against the order of detention is hampered
by non-supply of the particular document.”
29. In the case of Abdullah Kadher Batcha and another (supra), again
the position was reiterated by this Court thus:
“7. The court has a duty to see whether the non-supply of
any document is in any way prejudicial to the case of the
detenu. The High Court has not examined as to how the
non-supply of the documents called for had any effect on
the detenu and/or whether the non-supply was prejudicial
to the detenu. Merely because copies of some documents
have (sic not) been supplied, they cannot by any stretch
of imagination be called as relied upon documents. While
328 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
examining whether non-supply of a document would
prejudice a detenu, the court has to examine whether
the detenu would be deprived of making an effective
representation in the absence of a document. Primarily,
the copies which form the ground for detention are to
be supplied and non-supply thereof would prejudice the
detenu. But documents which are merely referred to for
the purpose of narration of facts in that sense cannot be
termed to be documents without the supply of which the
detenu is prejudiced.”
30. This Court reiterated that, primarily, the copies which form the
ground for detention are to be supplied and non-supply thereof would
prejudice the detenu. It has been further held that the documents
which are merely referred to for the purpose of narration of facts in
that sense cannot be termed to be documents without the supply
of which the detenu is prejudiced.
31. In the case of Ranu Bhandari (supra), this Court observed thus:
“25. Keeping in mind the fact that of all human rights the
right to personal liberty and individual freedom is probably
the most cherished, we can now proceed to examine the
contention advanced on behalf of the parties in the facts and
circumstances of this case. But before we proceed to do
so, it would be apposite to reproduce hereinbelow a verse
from a song which was introduced in the cinematographic
version of Joy Adamson's memorable classic Born Free
which in a few simple words encapsulates the essence of
personal liberty and individual freedom and runs as follows:
“Born free, as free as the wind blows,
As free as the grass grows,
Born free to follow your heart.
Born free and beauty surrounds you,
The world still astounds you,
Each time you look at a star.
Stay free, with no walls to hide you,
You’re as free as the roving tide,
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 329
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
So there’s no need to hide.
Born free and life is worth living,
It’s only worth living, if you’re born free.”
The aforesaid words aptly describe the concept of
personal liberty and individual freedom which may,
however, be curtailed by preventive detention laws,
which could be used to consign an individual to the
confines of jail without any trial, on the basis of the
satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority on the
basis of material placed before him. The courts which
are empowered to issue prerogative writs have, therefore,
to be extremely cautious in examining the manner in which
a detention order is passed in respect of an individual so
that his right to personal liberty and individual freedom
is not arbitrarily taken away from him even temporarily
without following the procedure prescribed by law.
26. We have indicated hereinbefore that the consistent view
expressed by this Court in matters relating to preventive
detention is that while issuing an order of detention, the
detaining authority must be provided with all the materials
available against the individual concerned, both against him
and in his favour, to enable it to reach a just conclusion
that the detention of such individual is necessary in the
interest of the State and the general public.
27. It has also been the consistent view that when a
detention order is passed all the material relied upon
by the detaining authority in making such an order,
must be supplied to the detenu to enable him to make
an effective representation against the detention order
in compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution,
irrespective of whether he had knowledge of the
same or not. These have been recognised by this Court
as the minimum safeguards to ensure that preventive
detention laws, which are an evil necessity, do not become
instruments of oppression in the hands of the authorities
concerned or to avoid criminal proceedings which would
entail a proper investigation.”
[emphasis supplied]
330 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
32. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment would reveal that for emphasizing
the importance of personal liberty and individual freedom, this Court
has reproduced Joy Adamson’s memorable classic Born Free. This
Court observed that though the concept of personal liberty and
individual freedom can be curtailed by preventive detention laws,
the Courts have to ensure that the right to personal liberty and
individual freedom is not arbitrarily taken away even temporarily
without following the procedure prescribed by law. It has been held
that when a detention order is passed all the material relied upon by
the detaining authority in making such an order must be supplied to
the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation. This
Court held that this is required in order to comply with the mandate
of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution, irrespective of whether the detenu
had knowledge of such material or not.
33. It is thus a settled position that though it may not be necessary to
furnish copies of each and every document to which a casual or
passing reference has been made, it is imperative that every such
document which has been relied on by the Detaining Authority
and which affects the right of the detenu to make an effective
representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution has to be
supplied to the detenu.
34. In the light of this legal position, let us examine the impugned order.
35. The grounds on which the detention order dated 31st August 2023
has been made read thus:
“The following facts have been brought to my attention
by the Sponsoring Authority of this COFEPOSA
proposal i.e. the Directorate of Enforcement, Kochi
Zonal Unit and I have gone through the facts presented
by the Sponsoring Authority as mentioned below:-
i. A search was conducted on 19-06-2023 at the
residence of Shri Appisseril Kochu Muhammed
Shaji @ Payasam Shaji i.e you, Appisseril House,
Nadakkal PO, Erattupetta, Kottayam 686121 from
where Shri Appisseril Kochu Muhammed Shaji i e.
you are operating your foreign currency exchange
business. You stated that you were doing trading
of fruits to nearby areas. During the course of
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 331
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
search, unaccounted Indian currency amounting
to Rs 6,70,100/-, unaccounted Gold in the form of
coins and biscuits weighing 110 35 Grams valued at
Rs.6,08,028.5/-, unaccounted Silver weighing 1781
Grams in the form of balls and pieces valued to Rs
136246.5/- totally valuing to the tune of Rs 14,14,375/-
(Fourteen Lakh Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred
Seventy Five Only) were found and seized under
the FFMA, 1999.
ii. During the course of search, statement of you i.e.
Shri Shaji A K was recorded on 20.06.2023 under
Section 37 of Foreign Exchange Management Act,
1999, wherein Mr. Shaji A.K. i.e. you have admitted
that the cash in Indian currencies which was seized
from your house are unaccounted and the paper
slips were taken from your residence in which you
noted the details of forex transactions of your work
as a carrier of foreign currencies; that you were
working as a commission agent for various Foreign
Exchange Racketeers and handed over the illegally
collected foreign currencies as well as Indian
currencies to various persons inside and outside
Kerala mainly at Chennai; that you were collecting
foreign currencies from your customers and clients
without obtaining KYC details, licenses and no
invoices were generated against receipts of foreign
currency; that you are doing these illegal activities
on behalf of various Foreign Exchange Racketeers;
that you were only concerned about the commissions
which you received from such illegal activities; that
the most part of your income was generated out of
these illegal transactions by way of purchase and
sale of illegally collected foreign currencies from NRIs
and other forex dealers mainly from Suresh Babu at
Kottayam, who was also operating the unaccounted
foreign currency business.
iii. Further, Shri Suresh Babu in his statement recorded
on 07.07.2023 also admitted having illegal foreign
currency dealings with Shri Shaji A.K. i.e. you.
332 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Furthermore, corroborative evidences in respect of
illegal foreign exchange transactions between Shri
Suresh Babu and Shri Shaji A.K. i.e. you have been
recovered by way of analysis of WhatsApp chat, voice
calls and images recovered from Shri Shaji A.K.’s i.e.
your mobile which was seized during search. Shri
Suresh Babu in his statement recorded on 07.07.2023
has inter alia stated that after fixing the rates through
phone call, Shaji i.e. you or the person appointed by
you will come to the office and collect FC with Shri
Suresh Babu and also give the equivalent INR for
the currency; that you also purchase FC kept by him;
usually you purchase in month interval and having
transaction worth of 30 lakhs for the past 2 years;
that within these 2 years you had transactions worth
of 2 Crores.
iv. During the Statement of Smt. Preetha Pradeep
recorded on 05.07.2023, on being asked about Shaji
or Payasam Shaji, a native of Eratupetta, she replied
that Shaji’s person will come to the shop and that
they will pay him the required currency which will be
collected from Suresh sir’s house through Binu; that
mostly the same person will come; that’s why she can
recognize him; that without any doubt, they will pay
the cash; that Suresh sir will arrange everything; that
mostly she or Binu will receive the amount brought
by Shaji; that they collect that and later it will be
counted; that if any shortages are found in the bundle
that will be informed to Suresh sir, that not only the
person who goes there with the money but many
others, who came to return the money to their office
through Shaji; that it is about 20 lakh rupees sent to
Shaji and Rs 30 lakhs is the maximum amount Shaji
brought to their office.
v. Statement of Preetha Pradeep was recorded on
06.07.2023, wherein she replied that M/s Suresh Forex
Services Pvt Ltd receives INRs minimum 2 times in a
month from Mr. Shaji; that each transactions contains
approximately Rs 20 Lakhs to 30 Lakhs; that in return
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 333
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
to that Suresh will give one packet and direct her to
hand over the same to the representative of Mr. Shaji.
vi. Statement of Shri Shaji A.K. i.e. you were recorded
on 11.0.7.2023 wherein you, inter-alia, stated that
you buy foreign currencies from foreign currency
dealers and buy from people who are NRI’s in Kerala
when they come home; that these are done without
any documents; that you mainly purchase foreign
currency from traders like Suresh of Suresh Forex
at Kottayam, Native of Parur Shambu, Simon from
Kottayam, etc.; that you have also given currencies
to people going abroad from Kerala; that mainly
you sell currency to Khader from Chennai; that
the currency collected from Kerala will be sent to
Chennai via Madhurai by bus; that this will be given
to Khader’s shop or you will inform Khader that you
reached Chennai and he will come to the lodge where
you are staying, or Khader’s people will come and
collect the foreign currency from you and give you
the equivalent INR; that these are also done without
any documents; that other than Khader, you used to
sell to Anas; that Khader’s firm is at Chennai Paris
and Burma Bazar, that to date, you purchased around
Rs 25 crores worth of foreign currency from Kerala
and sold that to Khader, that usually you used to
go to Chennai; that other than you, your son Hyder
Shaji, Anas Erattupetta, Siraj Erattupetta, etc. are
the carries of foreign currency to Chennai by bus;
that this will be given to Khader, that all these are
done without keeping any accounts and documents;
that the calculations prepared for your knowledge
will be destroyed after the transaction is completed;
that was the foreign currency transaction you made
and its calculations; that the first page indicates the
value of Indian currency equivalent to the rate of
foreign currency; that the second page indicates the
details of the persons who carry foreign currency to
Chennai and the quantity of currency sent; that those
were written on white paper and took its images; that
334 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
1416 means your niece Faris, next photo is Anas
from Erattupetta, both of them will carry currency
for you to Chennai; that the third page indicates
the images of Rs 500 notes, those are damaged
notes, that the next one marked us 16-6 means the
transaction of Rs 9,12,167/- dated 16.06.2023; that
the next page indicates the transaction done by you
on 17.6.2023 and the value of INR equivalent to the
foreign currency trading, that the thing written as
Faris indicates the amount of Rs 24,25,750/- that
Faris exchanged from Chennai and its value in INR,
that SR mean the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs, you paid
as per the instructions of Suresh Babu of Suresh
Forex at Kottayam to SANGVI STEEL at Chennai,
that this amounts you received from the staff Preetha
at Suresh Forex as per the instructions of Suresh
Babu; that Hyder 34 indicates the amount of Rs 34
lakhs worth of foreign currency he exchanged from
Chennai; that this foreign currency was given by you;
that Siraj 24 means the value of the foreign currency
exchanged by Siraj from Chennai.
vii. Another statement of you i.e. Shaji A.K. was recorded
on 17.07.2023, wherein you, inter-alia, stated as
under:
Answer 1: I heard the voice calls in above said Hash
value marked as CD-36. The voice in this call which
belongs to Suresh Babu and myself. The first number
in call details which was the mobile number of Suresh
Babu and this number belongs to me.
Answer 2 : I heard the voice calls in above said Hash
value marked as CD-37. The voice in this call which
belongs to Suresh Babu and myself. The first number
in call details which was the mobile number of Suresh
Babu and this number belongs to me.
Answer 3: I heard the voice calls in above said Hash
value marked as CD-38. The voice in this call which
belongs to Suresh Babu and myself. The first number
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 335
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
in call details which was the mobile number of Suresh
Babu and this number belongs to me.
Answer 4 : I heard the voice calls in above said Hash
value marked as CD-32. The voice in this call which
belongs to Suresh Babu and myself. The first number
in call details which was the mobile number of Suresh
Babu and this number belongs to me.
Question 5 : To whom you are selling the illegal foreign
currency received from Kerala other than Khader from
Chennai you mentioned in your previous statement?
Answer 5 : I sell the collected illegal foreign currency
from Kerala to a person named Manikannan from
Thrishnapalli in Tamil Nadu other the Khader in
Chennai.
Question 6 : Do you have any authorized license or
permit or acknowledgement to carry foreign currency
exchange business?
Answer 6 : I don’t have any authorized license,
permit, acknowledgement to carry foreign currency
exchange business.
viii. Further Shri Shaji A.K. @ Payasam Shaji i.e. you
have disclosed the names of other carriers i.e. (i)
Hyder Shaji (your son) (ii) Shri Anas from Erattupetta,
(iii) Shri Siraj from Erattupetta. You further disclosed
that they used to go Chennai on your directions with
unaccounted foreign currencies where they handed
over the currency to the Chennai based racketeers and
in exchange of foreign currency, they receive Indian
currency. All these transactions are unaccounted as
per your admission and the records were disposed
of once the transactions were completed. The entire
illegal transactions to the tune of Rs 25 Crores were
carried out by Shri Shaji A.K. @ Payasam Shaji i.e.
you with the help of your close relatives and friends.
ix. Thus, Shri Appisseril Kochu Muhammed Shaji @
Payasam Shaji i.e. you have indulged yourself in
336 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
hawala dealings, illegal purchase, sale and carriage
of foreign currencies.
x. Chapter II of Foreign Exchange Management Act,
1999 provides for “Regulation and Management of
Foreign Exchange”. Section 3 of Foreign Exchange
Management Act, 1999, specifically prohibits dealing
in foreign exchange without the general or special
permission of the Reserve Bank of India. It reads thus:
“3 Dealing in foreign exchange, etc. Save as otherwise
provided in this Act, rules or regulations made there
under, or with the general or special permission of
the Reserve Bank, no person shall-(a) deal in or
transfer any foreign exchange or foreign security to
any person not being an authorized person;
(b) make any payment to or for the credit of any
person resident outside India in any manner;
(c) receive otherwise through an authorized person,
any payment by order or on behalf of any person
resident outside India in any manner.
Explanation- For the purpose of this clause, where
any person in, or resident in, India receives any
payment by order or on behalf of any person resident
outside India through any other person (including an
authorized person) without a corresponding inward
remittance from any place outside India, then, such
person shall be deemed to have received such
payment otherwise than through an authorized
person;
(d) enter into any financial transaction in India as
consideration for or in association with acquisition or
creation or transfer of a right to acquire, any asset
outside India by any person
Explanation- For the purpose of this clause “financial
transaction” means making any payment to, or for the
credit of any person, or receiving any payment for, by
order or on behalf of any person, or drawing, issuing
or negotiating any bill of exchange or promissory note,
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 337
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
or transferring any security or acknowledging any
debt. 4 Holding of foreign exchange, etc. -Save as
otherwise provided in this Act, no person resident in
India shall acquire, hold, own, possess or transfer any
foreign exchange, foreign security or any immovable
property situated outside India.”
xi. Further, Section 4 of Foreign Exchange Management
Act, 1999, specifically provides that no person
resident in India shall acquire, hold, own or possess
or transfer any foreign exchange, foreign security
or any immovable property situated outside India,
except as otherwise provided under the Act. For the
contravention of the Act, rules and regulations, penalty
is provided under Section 13 of the Act. This would
mean that dealing in foreign exchange de hors the
statutory provisions, rules and regulations would be
illegal. For violation of foreign exchange regulations,
penalty can believe (sic) and such activity is certainly
an illegal activity, which is prejudicial to conservation
or augmentation of foreign exchange.
xii. Shri Appisseril Kochu Muhammed Shaji @ Payasam
Shaji i.e. you have indulged yourself in hawala
dealings, purchase and sale of foreign currencies
from retail customers without raising any invoice
and has generated unaccounted income in Indian
rupees and foreign currencies to the tune of Rs 25
crores. Thus, you have contravened the Section 3
and Section 4 of Foreign Exchange Management
Act, 1999 and indulged in the act prejudicial to the
conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange.
2. In view of the foregoing, I have no hesitation in
arriving at the conclusion that you have been engaging
yourself in activities, which have adversely affected
the augmentation of foreign exchange resources of
the country. Considering the nature and gravity of the
activities, your role therein and the well-laid out manner in
which you have been indulging in such prejudicial activities,
all of which reflect your high potentiality and propensity of
engaging yourself in such prejudicial activities in future, I
338 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
am satisfied that unless detained, you are likely to continue
to engage in the aforesaid prejudicial activities in future
also. Therefore, it is necessary to detain you under the
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to prevent you
in future from acting in any manner which is prejudicial to
the augmentation of foreign exchange.”
[emphasis supplied]
36. It could thus be seen that 8 factual aspects have been taken into
consideration by the Detaining Authority while arriving at its subjective
satisfaction that the detenu has been engaging himself in activities
which have adversely affected the augmentation of foreign exchange
resources of the country.
37. A perusal of the narration at clauses (iv) and (v) would reveal that
the said clauses refer to the statements of Preetha Pradeep recorded
on 5th July 2023 and 6th July 2023. In the said statements, she has
stated that Shaji’s person will come to the shop and that they will
pay him the required currency which will be collected from Suresh
sir’s house through Binu. She has further stated that mostly the
same person will come; that’s why she can recognize him. She has
further stated that, without any doubt, they will pay the cash and that
Suresh sir will arrange everything. She has stated that mostly she or
Binu will receive the amount brought by Shaji. She has further stated
that M/s Suresh Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. receives INRs minimum 2
times in a month from Mr. Shaji and that each transaction contains
approximately Rs.20 Lakhs to Rs. 30 Lakhs. She further stated
that in return to that Suresh will give one packet and direct her to
handover the same to the representative of Mr. Shaji.
38. It could thus be seen that apart from the above two statements of
Preetha Pradeep dated 5th July 2023 and 6th July 2023, the Detaining
Authority has taken into consideration one statement of Suresh Babu
recorded on 7th July 2023; three statements of the detenu recorded
on 20th June 2023, 11th July 2023 and 17th July 2023; and two other
factual aspects respectively.
39. It could thus also be seen that the said Preetha Pradeep is a vital
link for transactions between the said Suresh Babu and the detenu.
It, therefore, cannot be said that the statements of Preetha Pradeep
are just a casual or a passing reference. On the contrary, the said
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 339
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
statements, as has been seen from the preamble of the grounds of
detention as well as the beginning of paragraph 2 of the detention
order dated 31st August 2023, formed the basis for arriving at a
subjective satisfaction by the Detaining Authority. It is difficult to
determine as to whether in the absence of the said statements
of Preetha Pradeep the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the
Detaining Authority could have been arrived at or not. However, the
very recording of the factum of the statements of Preetha Pradeep
make them a relevant aspect taken into consideration by the Detaining
Authority for arriving at its subjective satisfaction.
40. Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondents on the provisions of section 5A of
the COFEPOSA is concerned, no doubt that if the detention order
is made on several grounds and if the said order is vitiated on one
of the grounds and it can be sustained on the other grounds, the
detention would not be vitiated. However, a distinction will have to
be drawn between the detention order passed on various grounds
and the detention order passed on one ground relying on various
materials. If the detention order is passed on one ground taking into
consideration 8 factual aspects, the question would be as to whether
non-supply of the material containing the factual aspects relied on by
the Detaining Authority would vitiate the detention order or not. The
question, therefore, for our consideration is as to whether though
the grounds of detention could be severed, whether the materials
which have been relied on by the Detaining Authority for arriving at
its subjective satisfaction could also be severed.
41. No doubt, as has been reiterated time and again by this Court, it
may not be necessary to supply each and every document to which
a passing or casual reference is made. However, all such material
which has been relied on by the Detaining Authority while arriving
at its subjective satisfaction will imperatively have to be supplied to
the detenu.
42. In our view, the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority
which form the basis of the material facts which have been taken
into consideration to form a chain of events could not be severed
and the High Court was not justified in coming to a finding that
despite eschewing of certain material taken into consideration by the
340 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Detaining Authority, the detention order can be sustained by holding
that the Detaining Authority would have arrived at such a subjective
satisfaction even without such material.
43. In this respect, we may gainfully refer to the following observation
of this Court in the case of A. Sowkath Ali (supra):
“27. …Section 5-A applies where the detention is based
on more than one ground, not where it is based on a
single ground. Same is also the decision of this Court in
the unreported decision of Prem Prakash v. Union of India
[Crl. A. No. 170 of 1996 dated 7-10-1996 (see below at p.
163)] decided on 7-10-1996 relying on K. Satyanarayan
Subudhi v. Union of India [1991 Supp (2) SCC 153 :
1991 SCC (Cri) 1013]. Coming back to the present case
we find really it is a case of one composite ground. The
different numbers of the ground of detention are only
paragraphs narrating the facts with the details of the
document which is being relied on but factually, the
detention order is based on one ground, which is
revealed by Ground (1)(xvi) of the grounds of detention
which we have already quoted hereinbefore. Thus on
the facts of this case Section 5-A has no application
in the present case”.
[emphasis supplied]
44. In that view of the matter, we have come to a considered conclusion
that non-supply of the statements of Preetha Pradeep has affected
the right of the detenu to make an effective representation under
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and as such, the detention
is vitiated on the said ground.
(b) As to whether non-receipt of the representation and the
delay in deciding the representation by the Detaining
Authority and the Central Government would also affect the
right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
45. It is undisputed position that the detenu has submitted his
representation on 27th September 2023 to the Jail Authorities for
onward transmission of the same to the Detaining Authority and the
Central Government.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 341
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
46. It will be relevant to refer to certain averments made in the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, which would
show that how the representation of the detenu was dealt with.
“The contents of the ground C taken in the instant
petition are incorrect and denied. It is submitted
that the office of Director General (DG), CEIB never
received any representation from or on behalf of the
detenu/the husband of the petitioner. However, after
receipt of this petition, the office of the jail authorities
was contacted. The jail authorities informed that three
representations dated 27.09.2023 addressed to the
Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA), Director General, CEIB
and the Chairman, COFEPOSA Advisory Board were
submitted by the detenu/the husband of the petitioner.
The jail authorities sent the said representations to the
concerned authorities through Ordinary Post. However,
neither the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) nor the Director
General, CEIB received the said representations. Since
the said representations were sent by the ordinary post,
they cannot be tracked to know where the said ordinary
posts have stuck. Hence the question of non-disposal
of the representations by the concerned authorities do
not arise.”
47. It is thus clear that the detenu had made representations on 27th
September 2023, addressed to the Detaining Authority, Central
Government and the Advisory Board. The Jail Authorities had merely
forwarded the said representations through ordinary post. The said
representations neither reached the Detaining Authority nor the
Central Government. The perusal of the statements made in the
counter affidavit would clearly show that since the said representations
were sent by ordinary post, they also could not be tracked. It is
further stated in the counter affidavit that after the notice was issued
by this Court in the present matter, the ground with regard to non-
disposal of the representations of the detenu came to the notice of
the concerned Authorities. As such, the representations were sought
from the Jail Authorities through email. After receiving the same from
the Jail Authorities, the same were placed before the concerned
authorities, which were rejected on 11th June 2024 and 12th June
2024 respectively. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that
342 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the Memoranda dated 12th June 2024 to that effect were sent to the
detenu/the husband of the appellant.
48. It is thus clear that the representations dated 27th September 2023 of
the detenu was rejected by the Detaining Authority and the Central
Government on 11th June 2024 and 12th June 2024 respectively i.e.
after a period of almost 9 months from the date of making the same.
49. In this respect, it will be apposite to refer to the observation of this
Court in the case of Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others22
wherein this Court was considering the delay of one month and five
days in communicating the representation of the detenu from the jail
to the detaining authority. This Court observed that:
“9. In spite of these evasive answers contained in para
21, it is clear that the representation dated February 23,
1980 of the detenu made by him through the jail authorities
reached the detaining authority only on March 27, 1980. It
was substantially in the same terms as the representation
addressed to the Central Government for revocation of
the detention under Section 11. This delay of one month
and five days in communicating the representation
of the detenu from the jail to the detaining authority
demonstrates the gross negligence and extreme
callousness with which the representation made by
the detenu was dealt with by the respondents or their
agents. Even after this huge delay, the representation was
sent to the Collector for comments, and no intimation has
been sent to the detenu about the fate of his representation
dated February 23, 1980, addressed to the detaining
authority. In fact, as it appears from the counter, the
detaining authority refused to consider the same merely
because the detenu had requested that this representation
be forwarded to the Advisory Board, also. The mere fact
that the meeting of the Advisory Board had been
held earlier was not a valid excuse for the detaining
authority in not considering the representation of the
detenu at all.
22 (1981) 1 SCC 416
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 343
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
10. It is well settled that in case of preventive detention
of a citizen, Article 22(5) of the Constitution enjoins
that the obligation of the appropriate Government or
of the detaining authority to afford the detenu the
earliest opportunity to make a representation and to
consider that representation speedily is distinct from
the Government’s obligation to constitute a Board and
to communicate the representation, amongst other
materials, to the Board to enable it to form its opinion
and to obtain such opinion. In the instant case, there
has been a breach of these constitutional imperatives.”
[emphasis supplied]
50. This Court in unequivocal terms held that the delay of one month
and five days in communicating the representation of the detenu
from the jail to the detaining authority demonstrates the gross
negligence and extreme callousness with which the representation
made by the detenu was dealt with by the respondents or their
agents. It has been further held that Article 22(5) of the Constitution
enjoins that the obligation of the appropriate Government or of the
detaining authority to afford the detenu the earliest opportunity to
make a representation and to consider that representation speedily
is distinct from the Government’s obligation to constitute a Board
and to communicate the representation, amongst other materials, to
the Board to enable it to form its opinion and to obtain such opinion.
51. It is thus clear that merely because the Advisory Board opined
that the order of detention was sustainable, it does not absolve
the agents of the Detaining Authority/the Central Government to
immediately forward the representation to the Competent Authority
and the Detaining Authority or the Central Government to consider
and decide such a representation speedily.
52. In the case of Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (supra),
this Court found that the representation of the detenu made to the
State Government was decided expeditiously. However, insofar as the
said representation made to the Central Government is concerned,
either it was not forwarded or someone tripped somewhere. The
inevitable result was that the detenu was deprived of a valuable right
to defend and assert his fundamental right to personal liberty. Chief
Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, speaking for the Bench, observed thus:
344 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“4. There is no difficulty insofar as the representation
to the Government of Punjab is concerned. But the
unfortunate lapse on the part of the authorities is that
they overlooked totally the representation made by the
detenu to the Central Government. The representations
to the State Government and the Central Government
were made by the detenu simultaneously through the
Jail Superintendent. The Superintendent should either
have forwarded the representations separately to the
Governments concerned or else he should have forwarded
them to the State Government with a request for the
onward transmission of the other representation to the
Central Government. Someone tripped somewhere and
the representation addressed to the Central Government
was apparently never forwarded to it, with the inevitable
result that the detenu has been unaccountably deprived of
a valuable right to defend and assert his fundamental right
to personal liberty. Maybe that the detenu is a smuggler
whose tribe (and how their numbers increase) deserves
no sympathy since its activities have paralysed the Indian
economy. But the laws of preventive detention afford only
a modicum of safeguards to persons detained under them
and if freedom and liberty are to have any meaning in
our democratic set-up, it is essential that at least those
safeguards are not denied to the detenus. Section 11(1)
of COFEPOSA confers upon the Central Government the
power to revoke an order of detention even if it is made by
the State Government or its officer. That power, in order to
be real and effective, must imply the right in a detenu to
make a representation to the Central Government against
the order of detention. The failure in this case on the part
either of the Jail Superintendent or the State Government
to forward the detenu's representation to the Central
Government has deprived the detenu of the valuable right
to have his detention revoked by that Government. The
continued detention of the detenu must therefore be held
illegal and the detenu set free.
5. In Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan [(1980) 2 SCC 321 :
1980 SCC (Cri) 441] it was held by this Court that even
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 345
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
an inordinate delay on the part of the Central Government
in consideration of the representation of a detenu would
be in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, thereby
rendering the detention unconstitutional. In Shyam Ambalal
Siroya v. Union of India [(1980) 2 SCC 346 : 1980 SCC
(Cri) 447] this Court held that when a properly addressed
representation is made by the detenu to the Central
Government for revocation of the order of detention, a
statutory duty is cast upon the Central Government under
Section 11, COFEPOSA to apply its mind and either revoke
the order of detention or dismiss the petition and that a
petition for revocation of an order of detention should
be disposed of with reasonable expedition. Since the
representation was left unattended for four months, the
continued detention of the detenu was held illegal. In our
case, the representation to the Central Government was
not forwarded to it at all.”
53. This Court observed that, maybe the detenu was a smuggler whose
tribe (and how their numbers increase) deserved no sympathy
since its activities had paralysed the Indian economy, but the laws
of preventive detention afforded only a modicum of safeguards to
persons detained under them. It has been observed that it was
essential that at least those safeguards are not denied to the detenus.
This Court observed that the failure in that case either on the part
of the Jail Superintendent or the State Government to forward the
detenu’s representation to the Central Government had deprived
the detenu of the valuable right to have his detention revoked by
that Government.
54. Relying on the earlier judgments, this Court held that since the
representation was left unattended for four months, the continued
detention of the detenu was illegal.
55. In the case of Vijay Kumar vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and
others (supra), this Court observed thus:
“13. ….There are two time-lags which may be noticed.
Representation admittedly handed in to the Superintendent
of Jail on July 29, 1981, at Jammu reached Srinagar, the
summer capital of the State on August 12, 1981, which
shows a time-lag of 14 days. The second time-lag is, from
346 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
our point of view, more glaring. Even though the concerned
office was made aware of the fact by the wireless message
of the Superintendent of Jail, Jammu, dated July 29,
1981, that a representation of the detenu has been sent
by post, the first query about its non-receipt came as per
the wireless message dated August 6, 1981. That can
be overlooked, but it has one important message. The
concerned office was aware of the fact that a representation
has already been made and a duplicate was sent for. With
the background of this knowledge trace the movement of
the representation from the date of its admitted receipt
being August 12, 1981. If the representation was received
on August 12, 1981, and the same office disposed it of on
August 31, 1981, there has been a time-lag of 19 days
and the explanation in that behalf in the affidavit of Shri
Salathia is far from convincing. In our opinion, in the facts
of this case this delay, apart from being inordinate, is not
explained on any convincing grounds.”
56. This Court found that the delay of 14 days in transmitting the
representation from Jammu to Srinagar and 19 days in deciding the
same vitiated the detention order.
57. In the case of Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik vs. Union of
India and others (supra), this Court was again considering a similar
factual scenario. The detenu had handed over the representation to
the Superintendent of Central Prison on 16th June 1988, who callously
ignored it and left the same unattended for a period of seven days
and forwarded the same to the Government on 22nd June 1988. This
Court surveyed the earlier decisions and observed thus:
“5. This Court in Sk. Abdul Karim v. State of W.B. [(1969)
1 SCC 433] held: (SCC p. 439, para 8)
“The right of representation under Article 22(5)
is a valuable constitutional right and is not a
mere formality.”
6. This view was reiterated in Rashid Sk. v. State of W.B.
[(1973) 3 SCC 476 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 376] while dealing with
the constitutional requirement of expeditious consideration
of the petitioner's representation by the Government as
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 347
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
spelt out from Article 22(5) of the Constitution observing
thus: (SCC p. 478, para 4)
“The ultimate objective of this provision can
only be the most speedy consideration of his
representation by the authorities concerned,
for, without its expeditious consideration with a
sense of urgency the basic purpose of affording
earliest opportunity of making the representation
is likely to be defeated. This right to represent
and to have the representation considered
at the earliest flows from the constitutional
guarantee of the right to personal liberty — the
right which is highly cherished in our Republic
and its protection against arbitrary and unlawful
invasion.”
7. It is neither possible nor advisable to lay down any rigid
period of time uniformly applicable to all cases within which
period the representation of detenu has to be disposed
of with reasonable expedition but it must necessarily
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The
expression “reasonable expedition” is explained in Sabir
Ahmed v. Union of India [(1980) 3 SCC 295 : 1980 SCC
(Cri) 675] as follows: (SCC p. 299, para 12)
“What is ‘reasonable expedition’ is a question
depending on the circumstances of the particular
case. No hard and fast rule as to the measure of
reasonable time can be laid down. But it certainly
does not cover the delay due to negligence,
callous inaction, avoidable red-tapism and
unduly protracted procrastination.”
8. See also Vijay Kumar v. State of J&K [(1982) 2 SCC
43 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 348] and Raisuddin v. State of U.P.
[(1983) 4 SCC 537 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 16] .
9. Thus when it is emphasised and re-emphasised by
a series of decisions of this Court that a representation
should be considered with reasonable expedition, it is
imperative on the part of every authority, whether in
348 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
merely transmitting or dealing with it, to discharge that
obligation with all reasonable promptness and diligence
without giving room for any complaint of remissness,
indifference or avoidable delay because the delay, caused
by slackness on the part of any authority, will ultimately
result in the delay of the disposal of the representation
which in turn may invalidate the order of detention as
having infringed the mandate of Article 22(5) of the
Constitution.
10. A contention similar to one pressed before us was
examined by this Court in Vijay Kumar case [(1982) 2 SCC
43 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 348] wherein the facts were that the
representation of the detenu therein dated 29-7-1981 was
forwarded to Government by the Superintendent of Jail on
the same day by post followed by a wireless message,
but according to the Government, the representation
was not received by them. Thereafter, a duplicate copy
was sent by the Jail Superintendent on being requested
and the same was received by the Government on 12-
8-1981. Considering the time lag of 14 days in the given
circumstances of that case, this Court though overlooked
the same and allowed the writ petition on the subsequent
time lag, made the following observation: (SCC pp. 49-
50, para 12)
“The jail authority is merely a communicating
channel because the representation has
to reach the Government which enjoys the
power of revoking the detention order. The
intermediary authorities who are communicating
authorities have also to move with an amount
of promptitude so that the statutory guarantee
of affording earliest opportunity of making
the representation and the same reaching
the Government is translated into action.
The corresponding obligation of the State to
consider the representation cannot be whittled
down by merely saying that much time was
lost in the transit. If the Government enacts a
law like the present Act empowering certain
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 349
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
authorities to make the detention order and also
simultaneously makes a statutory provision of
affording the earliest opportunity to the detenu to
make his representation against his detention, to
the Government and not the detaining authority,
of necessity the State Government must gear
up its own machinery to see that in these cases
the representation reaches the Government
as quickly as possible and it is considered by
the authorities with equal promptitude. Any
slackness in this behalf not properly explained
would be denial of the protection conferred by
the statute and would result in invalidation of
the order.”
11. Reverting to the instant case, we hold that the above
observation in Vijay Kumar case [(1982) 2 SCC 43 : 1982
SCC (Cri) 348] will squarely be applicable to the facts
herein. Indisputably the Superintendent of Central Prison
of Bombay to whom the representation was handed over
by the detenu on 16-6-1988 for mere onward transmission
to the Central Government has callously ignored and
kept it in cold storage unattended for a period of seven
days, and as a result of that, the representation reached
the Government eleven days after it was handed over
to the Jail Superintendent. Why the representation was
retained by the Jail Superintendent has not at all been
explained in spite of the fact that this Court has permitted
the respondent to explain the delay in this appeal, if not
before the High Court.
12. In our view, the supine indifference, slackness and
callous attitude on the part of the Jail Superintendent who
had unreasonably delayed in transmitting the representation
as an intermediary, had ultimately caused undue delay
in the disposal of the appellant's representation by the
Government which received the representation eleven
days after it was handed over to the Jail Superintendent
by the detenu. This avoidable and unexplained delay
has resulted in rendering the continued detention of the
appellant illegal and constitutionally impermissible.”
350 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
58. It could thus be seen that this Court in unequivocal terms held that
the intermediary authorities who are communicating authorities
are also required to move with an amount of promptitude so that
the statutory guarantee of affording earliest opportunity of making
the representation and the same reaching the Government is
translated into action. This Court expressed the need of the State
Government to gear up its own machinery to see that in these cases
the representation reaches the Government as quickly as possible
and it is considered by the authorities with equal promptitude. It has
been held that any slackness in this behalf not properly explained
would be denial of the protection conferred by the statute and would
result in invalidation of the order.
59. The position of law as laid down in the case of Aslam Ahmed
Zahire Ahmed Shaik (supra) was reiterated by a bench of 3 learned
Judges of this Court in the case of B. Alamelu vs. State of T.N.
and others (supra).
60. In the present case, it is an admitted position that though the detenu
had made a representation on 27th September 2023 to the Jail
Authorities for onward transmission of the same to the Detaining
Authority and the Central Government, it is merely stated in the counter
affidavit that the Jail Authorities informed that the representations
dated 27th September 2023 were submitted by the detenu. The
Jail Authorities had sent the said representations to the concerned
authorities through ordinary post. It is stated that however, neither
the Detaining Authority nor the Central Government received the said
representations. It is further stated that the said representations were
sent by the ordinary post and since the said representations were
sent by ordinary post, they could not be tracked to know where the
said ordinary posts have stuck. It is further averred that only after a
notice was issued in the present matter, the said representations were
sought from the Jail Authorities and the same came to be rejected
on 11th June 2024 and 12th June 2024 respectively.
61. Memoranda dated 12th June 2024 further show that the Director
General, CEIB being the Central Government received the
representation of the detenu through Superintendent, Central Prison &
Correctional Home, TVPM-12 vide his letter dated 11th May 2024 and
the representation was received by the Detaining Authority through
email on 22nd May 2024. However, there is no mention in the counter
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 351
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
affidavit as to when the said representations were in fact received by
the Central Government and the Detaining Authority. Presumably, if
it is held that the representation would have been received by the
Central Government within 2 or 3 days from the date of dispatch
thereof that will bring the date of receipt on 14/15th May 2024.
62. Even if it is presumed that the said representations were received
on 15th May 2024 and 22nd May 2024 respectively, even then there
is a delay of about 27 days in deciding the said representation by
the Central Government and 20 days by the Detaining Authority.
63. No explanation as to what caused such a delay in deciding the said
representations of the detenu is offered in the counter affidavit.
64. Firstly, we find that the Superintendent of the Central Prison &
Correctional Home has acted in a thoroughly callous and casual
manner. In spite of there being catena of judgments by this Court
that it is the duty of the transmitting authorities to transmit the
representation of the detenu promptly and it is the corresponding
duty of the concerned authorities to consider the said representation
and to decide it swiftly, the same has been followed only in breach
in the present matter.
65. In the present case, it has been casually stated that though the Jail
Authorities had informed that the representations of the detenu were
sent through ordinary post, the same were neither received by the
Detaining Authority nor the Central Government. We deprecate the
practice of the Prison Authorities in dealing with the valuable right
of the detenu in such a casual manner.
66. In spite of this Court clearly observing in the case of Vijay Kumar
(supra) that the State Government must gear up its own machinery
to ensure that the representation is transmitted quickly; it reaches
the Central Government as quickly as possible and is decided
expeditiously. In the present case, the law laid down by this Court
has been given a go-bye.
67. The Jail Authorities ought to have ensured that the representation
of the detenu reaches the concerned Authorities at the earliest. In
the present era of technological advancement, the Jail Authorities
could have very well sent the copies of the representation to the
Detaining/Appropriate Authority either by email or at least a physical
copy could have been sent by Speed Post (acknowledgment due)
352 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
so that there could have been some evidence of the said being sent
to the competent authority and could have been tracked.
68. We are of the considered view that merely because there has been
a casual or callous and, in fact, negligent approach on the part of the
Jail Authorities in ensuring that the representation of the detenu is
communicated at the earliest, the valuable right available to the detenu
to have his representation decided expeditiously cannot be denied.
69. As already discussed herein above, there has been a delay of almost
about 9 months in deciding the representations made by the detenu.
Even otherwise, from the Memoranda dated 12th June 2024, as already
discussed herein above, there would be at least 27/20 days’ delay
on the part of the Central Government and the Detaining Authority
in deciding the representation of the detenu after it reached them
subsequent to the filing of the present appeal.
70. We may only reiterate what has been laid down in the earlier
judgments of this Court that the Prison Authorities should ensure that
the representations are sent to the Competent Authorities immediately
after the receipt thereof. In the present era of technological
development, the said representation can be sent through email
within a day. It is further needless to reiterate that the Competent
Authority should decide such representation with utmost expedition
so that the valuable right guaranteed to the detenu under Article
22(5) of the Constitution is not denied. In the matters pertaining to
personal liberty of the citizens, the Authorities are enjoined with a
constitutional obligation to decide the representation with utmost
expedition. Each day’s delay matters in such a case.
71. In the present matter, we find that on account of casual, callous and
negligent approach of the Prison Authorities, the representation of
the detenu could not reach to the Detaining Authority and the Central
Government within a reasonable period. There has been about
9 months’ delay in deciding the representation. Even otherwise,
accepting the stand of the respondents as made in the counter affidavit,
there has been a delay of 27/20 days on the part of the Central
Government and the Detaining Authority in deciding the representation
when it was called from the Prison Authorities after notice was issued
in the present matter. We further find that the detention order is liable
to be quashed and set aside on this ground also.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 353
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.
72. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed;
(ii) The judgment and order of the High Court dated 4th March
2024 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1271 of 2023 is quashed
and set aside.
(iii) The order dated 31st August 2023 passed by the Joint Secretary
(COFEPOSA) to the Government of India directing the detention
of the detenu is quashed and set aside.
(iv) 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.)
is quashed and set aside.
(v) The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, if not required
in any other case.
Result of the Case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Right of the detenu to make an effective representation u/Art. 22(5)"Sign in to search