Supreme Court of India
K.M. ABDULLA KUNHI AND B.L. ABDUL KHADERversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS., STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1991 INSC 12
- Decided
- 23 January 1991
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- B C RAY
Holding
The confirmation of a preventive detention order is not invalid merely because the detenu's representation was considered after confirmation; the Government may consider the representation independently thereafter.
Summary
The petitioners were detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 after gold and cash were seized from their premises. They filed representations against their detention, but the Government considered these representations only after confirming the detention orders, relying on an Advisory Board report that found sufficient cause. The petitioners challenged the validity of the confirmation, arguing that Article 22(5) of the Constitution requires the representation to be considered before confirmation, citing earlier cases (V.J. Jain, Om Prakash Bahl, Khairul Haque). The Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional mandate to consider the representation before confirming a detention order; the Government may consider the representation after confirmation and can revoke the order if it is not justified. Consequently, the earlier decisions requiring pre‑confirmation consideration were overruled, and the petitions were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a confirmation of a preventive detention order is invalid if the detenu's representation is not considered before confirmation.
- Whether Article 22(5) of the Constitution obliges the Government to consider the representation prior to confirming detention.
- Whether the earlier Supreme Court decisions (V.J. Jain, Om Prakash Bahl, Khairul Haque) are binding on this point.
Legislation cited
- Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974s. 10, s. 11, s. 3, s. 8
- General Clauses Acts. 21
Subjects
preventive detentionrepresentationArticle 22Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities ActAdvisory Boardconstitutional lawliberty
Judgment
K.M. ABDULLA KUNHI AND B.L. ABDUL KHADER
A v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., STATE OF KARNATAKA
AND ORS.
JANUARY 23, 1991
B
(B.C. RAY, M.H. KANIA, K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY,
L.M. SHARMA AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.]
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling ~
Activities Act, J974-Sections 3, 8, JO and J1-Detention order con-
firmed before consider.ation of representation of detenu-Whether
C valid-Representation received but considered by Government after
receiving report of Advisory Board-Whether. valid.
Constitution of India J950: Articles 22(4) and (5)_..:.Preventive
detention-Rights of detenu-What are.
D
A Division Bench of this Court in V.J. Jain v. Shri Pradhan and
Ors., [1979] 4 SCC 401 observed that the representation of the detenu
should be considered by the detaining authority as early as possible
before any order is made confirming the detention. The confirmation of
the detention order without the consideration of representation would
E be invalid and the subsequent consideration of the representation would
not cure the invalidity of the order of confirmation. This view was >--~
reiterated in the later case of Om Prakash Bahl v. Union of India, W .P.
No. 845of1979 decided on 15.10.1979.
As the aforesaid view required reconsideration, the instant SLPs
F and WPs had been referred to and heard by a constitutional bench.
On December 1, 1988, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence upon getting information that contraband gold has been
secreted in the room of petitioner No. 1 searched the room in the pre-
sence of independent witnesses. Another person was also pre~ent inside
G the room. The officers recovered one Samsonite pouch, and some
bundles of Indian currencies from the table drawer in that room. Inside
the said pouch, there were five gold biscuits of 24 ct. purity and of
foreign origin, and seized the same under a Mahazar.
On 24th February, 1989, that State Government passed two sepa-
H rate orders of detention under section 3(l)(iv) of the Conservation of
K.M.A. KUNHI v. U.0.1. 103
Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 and
A
the petitioners were taken into custody and detained in the Central
·prison. On 17th April, 1989, the detenus made representation to the
Government, which could not be immediately considered since they
required translation, and collection of information and comments. In
the meanwhile, the matter was referred to the Advisory Board, which
had its meeting on 20th April, 1989 considered the case of the detenus, B
and reported that there was sufficient cause for detention. On .27th
April, 1989, the Government accepted the report and confirmed the
deteqtion orders. On 6th and 7th May, 1989 the Government consi-
dered and rejected the representation of the detenus and they were
informed of the same.
The detention orders were challenged in the High Court through a c
writ petitiOn but the High Court dismissed the same.
In the appeals and writ petition to this Court, the main question
for consideration was, whether the confirmation of detention order
upon accepting the report of the Advisory Board renders itself invalid D
solely on the ground that the representation of the detenu was not
considered, and the subsequent consideration of the representation
would not cure that invalidity.
Disposing of the matters, the Court,
E
HELD: l(a) With regard to liberty of citizens the Court stands
guard over the facts and requirements of law, but Court cannot draw
_. presumption against any authority without material. [USG]
(b) The confirmation of detention does not preclude the Govern-
--- ment from revoking the order of detention upon considering the rep-
resen~tion of the detenu. [USG]
F
(c) There may be cases where the Government has to consider the
representation only after the conimnation of the detention. [1lSH]
2(a) There are two constitutional safeguards, viz: Clause (4) of G
Article 22, and Clause (S) of Article 22. The former requires that if a
~ detenu is liable to be detained for a longer period than thrfe months, his
case shall be referred to the Advisory Board which, must report before
the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its
opinion sufficient cause for such detention. The latter provides that
when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.
law providing for preventive detention the authority making the order
A
shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on
which . the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest
opportunity of making a representation against the order. [108E-G]
2(b) The detenu has two rights under clause (5) of Article 22 of
B the Constitution: (i) to be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds
on which the order of detention is based, that is, the grounds which led
to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and (ii) to be
afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the
order of detention. [108H; 109A]
3. The function of the Advisory Board is purely advisory and its
c r~port will enable the Government to detain the person beyond three
months provided the detention is .valid on its merits and does not
otherwise off~nd the Constitution. [108FJ
4(a) The constitution right to make representation under clause!
D ( 5) of Article 22 by neces~ implication guarantees the constitutional
right to a proper consideration of the representation. The obligation of
the Government to afford to the detenu an opportunity to make represe-
ntation and to consider such representation is distinct from the Govern-
ment's obligation to refer the case of det~nu along with the representa-
tion to the Advisory Board to enable it to form its opinion and send a ;..._
E report to the Government. [llOB-C]
4(b) It is implicit in clause (4) and (5) of Article 22 that the
Government while discharging its duty to consider the representation, .....
cannot depend upon the' views of the Board on such representation. It
'1as to consider the represenyition on its own without being inOuenced
F by any such view of the l}oard. The obligation of the Government to --
consider the representation is different from the obligation of the Board
to consider the representation at ~ time;')f hearlng the reference. The -
Government considers the represen~ation to ascertain essentially
whether the order i$ in conformity with the power under the law. [llOC-D)
G 4(c) The Board, on the other hand, considers the representation
and the case of the detenu to examine whether there is sufficient case for
detention. The consideration by the Board is in additional safeguard \ __
and not a substitute for consideration of the rei;resentation by the
Government.[110~]
H 4(d) The right to have the representation considered by the
K.M.A. KUNHI v. U.O.l. 105
Government, is safeguarded by clause (5) of Article 22, and it is inde-
I
pendent of the consideration of the detenu's case and his representation A
;A
by the Advisory Board under clause (4) of Article 22 read with section
8(c) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Activities Act, 197~. [llOFJ
Sk. Abdul Karim & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, [1969) 1 SCC B
433; Pankaj Kumar Chakrabarty & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, [1970]
1 SCR 543; Shayamal Chakraborty v. The Commissioner of Police
Calcutta and Atir., [1969] 2 SCC 426; B. Sundar Rao & Ors. v. State of
Orissa, [1972] 3 SCC 11; John Martin v. State of West Bengal, [1975] 3
SCR 211; S.K. Sekawat v. State of West Bengal, [1983) 2 SCR 161 and
Haradhan Saha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., [1975) 1 SCR
778, referred to. c
S(a) The representation relates to the liberty of the individual,
the highly cherished right enshrined in Article 21 of out Constitution.
Clause (S) of Article 22" therefore, casts a legar obligation on the
Government to consider the representation as early as possible. It is a D
constitutional mandate commanding the concerned authority to whom
the detenu submits his representation to consider the representatfon
and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. [ llOH; lllA]
5(b) The words "as soon as may be" occuring in clause (5) of
Article 22 reflects the concern of the Framers that the representation
should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of
- urgency without an avoidable delay. However, there can be no hard and
fast rule in·tbis regard. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. There is no period prescribed either under the Constitution
or under the concerned detention law, within which the representation
should be dealt with the requirement however, is thatthere should not F
be supine indifference slackness or callous attitude in considering the
r-· representation. Any unexplained delay in the dispos~l of the represen-·
tation would be a breach of_ the· constitutional· imperative and· it would
render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. [lllB•D]
Jayanarayan Sukut v. State of West Bengal, [19701 1 SCC 219; G
Frances Coralie Mullin v. W.C..Khambra and Ors., [1980) 2 SCC 275;
Rama Dhondu Borade v. V. K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police & Ors.,
[1989]3'SCC 173; and Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed-ShaiJJ,v-. Union of
India & Ors., [1989] 3 SCC 277, referred to~
6(a~ There is no constitutional mandate under clause (5) o'f Arti• H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19911 1 s.c.&.
A cle 22, much less any statutory requirement to consider the representa..
tion before confirming the order of detention. As long as the Govern-
ment without delay considers the representation with an unbiased mind
there is no basis for concluding that the absence of indep1mdeiit ebtt•
sideration is the obvious result if the representation is not considered
'before the confirmation of detention. Indeed there is no justification for
B
imposing this restriction on the power of the Government. tUstM>l
6(b) Clause (5) of Article 22 suggests that the repre!H!blation
could be received even after confirmation of the order ot detention. The
words "shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a rept·esen-
tation against the order" in clause (5) of Article 22 suggest that the
c obligation of the Government is to offer the detenu hD opportunity ()f
making a representation against the order, before it ts confirmed
according to the procedure laid down under section 8 of the Act. But if
the detenu does not exercise his right to make representation at that
stage, but presents it to the Government after the Government has
confirmed the order of detention, the Government still has to consider
D
such representation and release the detenu if the detention is not within
the power conferred under the statute. The confirmation of the order of
detention is not conclusive as against the detenu. It can be revoked suo
motu under Section 11 or upon a representation of the detenu. [116A-B]
6(c) So long as t~e representation is independently considered by
E
the Government and if there is no delay in considering the representa-
tion, the fact that· it is considered after the confirmation of detention
makes littl~ difference on the validity of the detention or confirmation of
Jhe detention. ·The confirmation cannot be invalidated s0lely on the
ground ·that the representation is considered subsequent to conf'mna-
tion of the detention. Nor it could be presumed that such consideration
F
is not a~ independent consideration. [116C-D]
V.J. Jain v. Shri Pradhan & Ors., [1979]4SCC 401; Om Prakash
Bahl v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. No. 845 of 1979 decided on
15.10.1979 and Khairul Haque v. State of West Bengal, W.P. No. 246/
G 69 decided on 10.9.1969, over ruled; Khudiram Das v~ State of West
Bengal & Ors., [197512 SCC 81, distinguished.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Writ Petition
(Crl.) No. 508 of 1989 etc. etc.
B (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
- K.M.A. KUNHI v. U.0.1. [SHEITY, J.]
. Harjinder Singh, R.N. Joshi, A. Acharjee, Navin Malhotra,
Jagan M. Rao and Raju Ramchandran for the Petitioners.
107
A
V.C. Mahajan, B. Parthasarthy, P. Parmeswaran and M.
Veerappa for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. A Division Bench of this
- ___,,. Court while expressing the view that the decisions in J. V. Jain v. Shri
Pradhan and Ors., [ 1979] 4 SCC 401 and Om Prakash Bahlv. Union of
~
India and Ors, W.P. No. 845 of 1979 decided on. 15.10.1979 (Unre~
ported) require re-consideration has referred these matters to the
-· ) Constitution Bench.
It is convenient at this point to refer to the statement of law laid
c
down in the aforesaid two cases. In both the cases, as ill the present
case, the persons were detained under the Conservation of Foreign
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('the D
Act'). The detenu made representation to the appropriate Govern-
ment. By then the Advisory Board was already constituted and it was
scheduled to meet to consider the case of the detenu. The Government
forwarded the detenu's representation to the Advisory Board. The
Advisory Board considered the case of the detenu and also the rep-
resentation and submitted report expt;essing the opinion that there was E
sufficient cause for the detention of the person. The Government after
considering that report confirmed the order of detention. It appears
- that the representation of the detenu was not considered before con-
firming the detention order and it came to be considered and rejected
only thereafter In V.J. Jain case this Court observed that the rep-
resentation of the detenu ·should be considered by the detaining F
authority as early as possible before any order is made confirming the
detention. The confirmation of the detention order without the consi-
deration of representation would be invalid and the subsequent considera-
tion of the representation would not cure the invalidity of the order of
confirmation. This view has been reiterated in the unreported judg-
ment in Om Prakash Bahl case. G
The relevant facts of the present case may now be narrated: On 1
--' December, 1988, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelli-
gence upon getting information that the contraband gold has been
secreted in the room occupied by K.M. Abdulla Kunhi, searched the
room in the presence of independent witnesses. Another person called H
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.
Mohammed Ali was also present inside the room. The officers
-
A recovered one Samsonite pouch and some bundles of the Indian
currencies amounting to Rs.34,800 from the table drawer in that room.
Inside the said pouch, there were five gold biscuits of 24 ct. purity and
of foreign origin. Under the Mahazar, the officers seized the gold
biscuits along with the Indian currency. On 24 February 1989, the
B State Government passed two separate orders of detention under
Section 3( l)(iv) of the Act,. directing the detention of K.M. Abdulla
Kunhi, the common petitioner in W.P. (Cr!.) No. 508 of 1989 and SLP
(Cr!.) 2009 of 1989, and B.L. Mohammed Ali, the common petitioner
in W.P. (Cr!.) No. 5.42 of 1989 and SLP (Cr!.) No 2117.of 1989. On 9
March 1989, Mohammed Ali was taken into custody. Both of them
were detained in Central Prison, Bangalore. On 17 April, 1989, the
c detenus made representations to the Government . The representa-
tions could not be immediately considered since they required transla-
tion and collection of information and comments from different
authorities. In the meantime, the case was referred to the Advisory
Board which had its meeting on 20 April 1989. The Board considered
D the case of the detenus and reported that there was sufficient cause for
their was unexplained delay in considering the representation of the
detenu. Indeed, counsel for the petitioners very fairly submitted that
they are not raising the question of delay. They also did not argue that
the rejection of the representation after the confirmation of detention
was not an independent consideration.
E
There are two constitutional safeguards, namely, Clause (4) of
Article 22, and Clause (5) of Article 22. The former requires that if a
detenu is liable to be detained for a longer period than three months,
his case shall be referred to the Advisory Board which must report
before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in
-
F its opinion sufficient cause for such detention. The function of the
Board is purely advisory and its report will enable the Government to
detain the person beyond three months provided the detention is valid
on its merits and does not otherwise offend the Constitutiori. Clause
(5) of Article 22 provides that when any person is detained in
pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive
G detention the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be,
communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been
made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a rep-
resentation against the order.
The detenu has two rights under clause (5) of Article 22 of the
H Constitution: (i) to be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds on
K.M.A. KUNHI v. U.0.1. [SHEITY, J.] 109
which the order of detention is based, that is, the grounds which led to
the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and (ii) to be A
""· afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against
the order of detention.
There are also statutory safeguards with regard to detention of
persons under the Act in tune with the Constitutional requirements. B
Section 3 of the Act provides power to make detention orders. Sub-
section (1) speaks of authorities who are competent to make detention
orders. Sub-section (2) states that when an order of detention is made
by the State Government or by an officer empowered by the State
Government, the State Government shall, within ten days, forward to
the Central Government a report in respect of that order. Sub-section
(3) thereof provides that a person detained in pursuance of a detention c
order shall be furnished with the grounds of detention order as soon as
may be, but ordinarily not later than five days after the detention. But
in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing,
the grounds shall be furnished not later than fifteen days from the date
of detention. D
Section 8 of the Act provides for reference of the detenu's case to
the Advisory Board, the Chairman and members of which shall
possess the qualification specified in sub-clause (a) of clause (4) of
Article 22 of the Constitution. They must be persons who are, or have
~" been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court. E
Clause (b) of Section 8 makes it obligatory for the Government to
-
refer the case of the detenu to Advisory Board within five weeks from
the date of detention. Clause (c) of Section 8 provides that the Board
shall after considering the reference and other material placed before
it and after hearing the detenu if he desires to be heard in person, give
its report as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention F
~..- of the person concerned. The Board shall submit the report within
~ eleven weeks from the date_ of detention of the person concerned.
Clause (f) of Section 8 states that in every case where the Advisory
Board has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the
detention of a person, the Government may confirm the detention
order and continue his detention for such period as the Government G
deems fit subject to the maximum period permissible under the Act. ln
every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its
--4 opinion no sufficient cause for the detention of the person, the
Government shall revoke the detention order and release the person
forthwith. This provision, of course, is subject to Section 9 with which
we are not concerned. H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.
Section 10 prescribes the maximum period for which any person
A may .be .detained. Section 11 provides power to the State Government \
or the Central Government to revoke the detention order without ,A
prejudice to the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.
This revocation shall not bar the making of another detention order
under Section 3 against the same person.
B
It is now beyond the pale of controyersy that the constitutional
right to make representation under clause (5) of Article 22 by neces-
sary implication guarantees the constitutional right to a proper consi- Y---
deration of the representation. Secondly, the obligation of the
Government to afford to the detenu an opportunity to make represen-
tation and to consid~ such representation is distinct from the Govern-
c ment's obligation to refer the case of detenu along with the representa-
tion to the Advisory Board to enable it to form its opinion and send a
report to the Government. It is implicit in clauses (4) and (5) qf Article
22 that the Government while discharging its duty to consider the
representation, cannot depend upon the views of the Board on such
D : representation. It has to consder the representation on its ownwith-
out being influenced by any such view of the Board. The obligation of
the Government to consider the representation is different from the
obligation of the Board to consider the representation at the time of
hearing the references. The Government considers the representation
to ascertain essentially whether the order is in conformity with the
E power under the law. The Board, on the other hand, considers the
representation and the case of the detenu to examine whether there is
sufficient case for detention. The consideration by the Board is an
additional safeguard and not a substitute for considerat;ion of the rep-
iesentation by the Government. The right to have the representation
considered by the Government, is safeguarded by cl. (5) of Article 22
--
F and it is.independent of the consideration of the detenu's case and his
representation by the Advisory Board under cl. (4) of Art. 22 read
with section 8(c) of the Act. (See: Sk. Abdul Karim & Ors. v. State of
West Bengal, [1969] 1 SCC 433; Pankaj Kumar Chakrabarty & Ors. v.
State of West Bengal, [1970] 1SCR543; Shayamal Chakraborty v. The
Commissioner of Police Calcutta and Anr., [1969] 2 SCC. 426;
G B. Sundar Rao and Ors. v. State of Orissa, [1972] 3 SCC 11; John
Matrin v. State of West Bengal, [1975] 3 SCR 211; S.K. Sekawa.tv. State
of West Bengal, [1983] 2 SCR 161 and Haradhan Saha & Anr. v. State
of West Bengal and Ors., [1975] 1 SCR 778.
>----
The representation relates to the liberty of the individual, the
H highly cherished right enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution.
K.M.A. KUNHI v. U.0.I. [SHETTY, J.] 111
Clause (5) of Article 22 therefore, casts a legal obligation on the Gov-
ernment to consider the representation as early as possible. It is a A
constitutional mandate commanding the concerned authority to whom
the detemi submits his representation to consider the representation
and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. The words "as
soon as may be'' occuring in clause (5) of Article 22 reflects the
concern of the Framers that the representation should be expeditiously B
considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency without an avoid-
- able delay. However, there can be no hard and fast rule in this regard
it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no
period prescribed either under the Constitution or under the con-
cerned detention law, within which the representation should be dealt
with. The requirement however, is that there should not be supine
indifference slackness or callous attitude in considering the represen- c
tation. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of representaton would
be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the
continued detention impermissible and illegal. This has been emphasi-
sed and re-emphasised by a series of decisions of this Court. (See:
Jayanarayan Sukut v. State of West Bengal, [1970] 1SCC219; Frances D
Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra and Ors., [1980] 2 SCC 275; Rama
Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police and Ors.,
[1989] 3 SCC 173 and Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of
India and Ors., [1989] 3 SCC 277.
In Jayanarayan Sukul case, A.N. Ray, J., as he then was, speak- E
ing for the Constitution Bench has laid down four principles which
should govern the consideration of representation of detenus (at p.
224): .
"First, the appropriate authority is bound to give an
opportunity to the detenu to make a representation and to F
~·
• consider the representation of the detenu as early as possi-
ble. Secondly, the consideration of the representation of
the detenu by the appropriate authority is entirely indepen-
dent of any action by the Advisory Board including the
consideration of the representation of the detenu by the
Advisory Board. Thirdly, there should not be any delay in G
the matter of consideration. It is true that no hard and fast
rule can be laid down as to the measure, of time taken by
-'
-
' the appropriate authority for consideration but it has to be
remembered that the Government has to be vigilant in the
governance of the citizens. A citizen's right raised a cor-
relative duty of the State. Fourthly, the appropriate H
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) 1 s.C.R.
Government is to exercise its opinion and judgment on the
A representation before sending the case along with the
detenu's representation to the Advisory Board. If the
appropriate Government will release the detenu the
Government will not send the matter to. the Advisory
Board. If, however, the Government will not release the
B detenu the Government will send the case along with the
detenu's representation to the Advisory Board. If there-
after the Advisory Board will express an opinion in favour
of release of the detenu the Government will release the
detenu. If the Advisory Board will express any opinion
against the release of the detenu the Government may still
exercise the power to release the detenu."
c
In Frances Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra and Ors., Chin-
nappa Reddy, J., while dealing with the time imperative for considera-
tion of the representation has emphasised (at 279):
D "We, however, hasten to add that the time imperative can
never be absolute or obsessive. The Court's observations
are not to be so understood. There has to be lee-way,
depending on the necessities (we refrain from using the
word 'circumstances') of the case. One may well imagine a
case where a detenu does not make representation before
E the Board makes its report making it impossible for the
detaining authority either to consider it or to forward it to
the Board in time or a case where a detenu makes a rep-
resentation to the detaining authority so shortly before the
Advisory Board takes up the reference that the detaining
authority cannot consider the representation before then
-
F but may merely ·forward it to the Board without himself
considering it. Several such situations may arise compelling
departure from the time-imperative. But no allowance can
be made for lethargic indifference. No allowance can be
made for needless procrastination. But allowance must
surely be made for necessary consultation where legal
G intricacies and factual remifications are involved. The
burden of explaining the necessity for the slightest depar-
ture froth the time-imperative is on the detaining authority."
In Frances Coralie Mullin's case the detenu's representation was
received by the detaining authority on December 26, 1979. Without
H any loss of time copy of the representation was sent to the customs
K.M.A. KUNHI v. U.0.1. [SHETIY, J.) 113
authorities for their remarks which was obviously necessary because
~ the information leading to the order of detention was collected by the A
customs authorities. The facts were undoubtedly complex since the
allegations against the detenu revealed an involvement with an inter-
national gang of dope smugglers. The comments of the customs
authorities were received on January 4, 1980. The Advisory Board was
meeting on January 4, 1980 and so there could be no question of the B
detaining authority considering the representation of the detenu
-· before the Board met, unless it was done in a great and undue haste.·
After obtaining the comments of the customs authorities, it was found
necessary to take legal advice as the representation posed many legal
and constitutional questions, so, after consultation with the Secretary
'
(Law and Judicial) Delhi Administration, the representation was
finally rejected by the Administrator on January 15, 1980. It was held c
that if there appeared to be any delay it was not due to any want of
care but because the representation required a thorough examination in
.,- consultation with investigation agencies and advisers on law
We agree with the observations in Frances Coralie Mullin case. D
The time imperative for consideration of representation can never be
absolute or obsessive. It depends upon the necessities and the time at
which the representation is made. The representation may be received
before the case is referred to the Advisory Board, but there may not be
-1.. time to dispose of the representation before referring the case to the
Advisory Board. In that situation the representation must also be E
forwarded to the Advisory Board along with the case of the detenu.
The representation may be received after the case of the detenu is
referred to the Board. Even in this situation the representation should
be forwarded to the Advisory Board provided the Board has not con-
eluded the proceedings. In both the situations there is no question of
consideration of the representation before the receipt of report of the
~
F
Advisory Board. Nor it could be said that the Government has delayed
consideration of the representation, unnecessarily awaiting the report
of the Board. It is proper for the Government in such situations fo
await the report of the Board. If the Board finds no material for
detention on the merits and reports accordingly, the Government is
bound to revoke the order of detention. Secondly, even if the Board G
expresses the view that there is sufficient cause for detention, the
~
Government after considering the representation could revoke the
detention. The Board has to submit its report within eleven weeks
from the date of detention; The Advisory Board may hear the detenu
at his request. The Constitution of the Board shows that it consists of
eminent eersons who are Judges or persons qualified to be Judges of H
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.
the High Court. It is therefore, proper that the Government coqs!ders
A the representation in the aforesaid two situations only after the receipt
9f the report of the Board. If the representation is received by the
Government after the Adv!sory Board has mad,e its report, there could
then of course be no question of sending the representation to the
Advisory Board. It will have to be dealt with and dispose<:! of by the
B Government as early as possible.
The crucial question that remains for consideration is whether
the Government should consider and dispose of the representation
before confirming the detention. This_ Court in V.J. Jain case has
observed (at 405) that it is a constitutional obligation under clause (5)
of Article 22 to consider the representation before confirming the
c order of detention. If it is not so considered, the confirmation becomes
inv~lid and the subsequent consideration and rejection of the rep-
resentation could not cure the invalidity of the order of confirmation:
To reach this conclusion, the Court has relied upon two earlier jupg-
ments of this Court: (i) Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal qrid
D Ors., [1975] 2 SCC 81 and (ii) Khairul Haque v. State of West Bengal,
W.P. No. 246/69 decided on 1-0.9.1969 (Unreported).
The deCision in Khudiram case is of little assistance to tlie princi-
ple stated in V.J. Jain case. It was a case of belated consideration of
the representation without acceptable explanation. The decision in
E Khairul Haque case is, however, relevant. It is also unreported deci-
sion. The facts of the case and the principles stated therein may be
furnished. There the petitioner was detained by an order dated 5 June
1969 of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, West Bengal,' under Sec-
tion 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He was ar~ested and
detained in Dum Dum Central Jail on 6 June 1969. The District Magis-
F trate informed the State Government of his said order on 9 June 1969.
On 14 June 1969, the Governor gave his approval and reported the
caS'e to the Central Government. On or about 23 June 1969, the
Government received the representation of the petitioner. On 30 June
1969 the Governor referred the case of the petitioner to the Advisory
Board. The Advisory Board made its report on 11 August 1969 to the
G effect that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the peti~
ti oner. Thereafter, on 12 August 1969, the Governor confirmed the
order of detention. On 29 August 1969, the Governor rejected the
petitioner's representation. The Court while referring these facts said >---
that there was unaccounted delay of little more than two months in the
consideration of the representation. Doubtless the detention was
H invalid on this delay alone. and the Court could have qu:~shed the
K.M.A. KUNHI v. U.0.1. [SHETIY, J.] 115
detention on that ground. But the Court, however, observ~d that it is
doubtful whether the Government's consideration of the representa- A
tion was independent as implicit in the language of Article 22(5). If the
confirmation by the Government of the order of the District Magis-
trate is made first and the Government rejects the representation
thereafter, such rejection is not an independent consideration but as
the result of its decision to confirm the order of detention. Irwas also B
observed that the process of decision-making has to be the other way
about, that is to say, the Government must first consider the represen-
tation and only later decide whether it should confiri:n the order of the
District Magistrate on the basis of the report of the Advisory Board.
The decision in Khairul Haque case has been followed in V.J. Jain case
which in turn was followed in Om Prakash Bahl case.
c
There is no constitutional mandate under cl. (5) of Article 22,
much less any statutory requirement to consider the representation
before confirming the order of detention. As long as the Government
without delay considers the representation with an unbiased mind
there is no basis for concluding that the absence of independent con- D
sideration is the obvious result if the representation is not considered
before the confirmation of detention. Indeed, there is no justification
for imposing this restriction on the power ot the Government. As
observed earlier, the Government's consideration of the representa-
tion is for a different purpose, namely, to find out whether the deten-
tion is in conformity with the power under the statute. This has been E
.. explained in Haradhan Saha case, where Ray, C.J., speaking for the
Constitution Bench observed that the consideration of the representa-
tion by the Government is only to ascertain whether the detention
order is in conformity with the power under the law. There need not be
a speaking order in disposing such representation. There is also no
failure of justice by the order not being a speaking order. All that is F
necessary is that there should be real and proper consideration by the
Government.
It is necessary to mention that with regard to liberty of citizens
the Court stands guard over the facts and requirements of law, but
Court cannot draw presumption against any authority without mate- G
rial. It may be borne in mind that the confirmation of detention does
not preclude the Government from revoking the order of detention
upon considering the representation. Secondly, there may be· cases
where the Government has to consider the representation only after
confirmation of detention. Clause (5) of Article 22 suggests that the
representation could be received even after confirmation of the order H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.
A of detention. The words 'shall afford him the earliest opportunity of
making a representation against the order' in clause (5) of Article 22 ~
suggest that th~ obligation of the Government is to offer tlie detenu an
opportunity of making a representation against the order, before it is
confirmed according to the procedure laid down under Section 8 of the
Act. But if the detenu does not exercise his right to make representa-
B tion at that stage, but presents it to the Government after the Govern-
ment has confirmed the order of detention, the Government still has to
consider such representation and release the detenu if the detention is '--r- _
not within the power conferred under the statute. The confirmation of
the order of detention is not conclusive as against the detenu. It can be •
revoked suo motu under Section 11 or upon a representation of the
c detenu. It seems to us therefore, that so long as the representation is
independently considered by the Government and if there is no delay
in considering the representation, the fact that it is considered after the
confirmation of detention makes little difference on the validity of the
detention or confirmation of the detention. The confirmation cannot - "'r.
be invalidated solely on the ground that the representation is con-
D sidered subsequent to confirmation of the detention. Nor it could be
presumed that such consideration is not an independent consideration.
With all respect, we are not inclined to subscribe to the views expres-
sed in V.J. Jain. Om Prakash Bahl and Khairul Haque cases. They
cannot be considered to be good law and hence stand overruled.
E Counsel however, submitted that the representation of the
detenu was not sent to the Advisory Board for consideration. This
question was not raised before the High Court, nor in the Writ Peti-
tions before us and hence rejected.
These petitions will now be placed before the Division Bench for
-
F
final disposal. ~-
N. V.K. Petitions disposed of.
r-
1
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "preventive detention"Sign in to search