Holding

Section 11 of COFEPOSA bestows a supervisory power on the Central Government that is coupled with a mandatory duty to consider any representation made by the detenu expeditiously; failure to do so invalidates the detention.

Summary

Sabir Ahmed filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the detention of his brother, Dawood Hasan Sheikh Ibrahim, under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The detenu had made a representation to the detaining authority and later applied to the Central Government for revocation of his detention under Section 11, but the Central Government failed to consider the petition for about four months. The Court examined whether Section 11 imposes a duty on the Central Government to consider such representations and whether delay vitiates the detention under Article 22(5). It held that Section 11 confers a supervisory power coupled with a duty to consider any representation expeditiously, and that the Central Government’s inaction amounted to a violation of the detenu’s constitutional rights. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the detention order was set aside, and the detenu was ordered to be released.

Issues considered

Does Section 11 of COFEPOSA impose a duty on the Central Government to consider representations or petitions for revocation of detention?
Does failure by the Central Government to consider a representation within a reasonable time render the detention illegal under Article 22(5) of the Constitution?
Is the detenu entitled to make a representation to the Central Government under Section 11?
Was the Minister of State competent to reject the detenu’s representation under the standing order?
Does the Central Government’s inaction constitute a breach of the detenu’s fundamental right to personal liberty?

Legislation cited

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974s. 11, s. 11(1), s. 3(2)
Constitution of Indias. Article 22(5), s. Article 32

Subjects

COFEPOSASection 11detentionrepresentationsupervisory powerArticle 22fundamental rightswrit petitioncentral government dutyexpeditious consideration

Judgment

' \

738

A SABIR AHMED
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
April, 18, 1980
B (R. S. SARKARIA AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.J
,
Conservarion of Foreign Exchange and PrevenJion of S1nuggling Activities
Act, 1974, Section 11, Scope of-Whether Central Goverrunen\ is bound ro
consider the application of the detenu's representation and non-consideration
thereof is illegal-Whether it is a Constitutional right of the detenue.
c
The pletitioner challenged the detention of his brother Dawood Hasan
Sheikh Ibrahim, under, the Conservation of 'Foreign Exchange and Prevention
of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention order was passed on Octo-
ber 2, 1979 by the detaining authority. The representation made by ~e detenu
on November 14, 1979 to the detaining authority in which inter alia he asked
for supply of the copies of dbcuments and statements relied upon in· the- grounds
D of detention, was rejected on December 10, 1979 by the Minister of State in
the Home Ministry of State Government, by virtue of the authorisation to
deal with the r:epresentations of detenus by a Standing Order made by the
Chief Minister on December 3, 1979. In the meantime, the Advisory Board
met and considered' the representation of the detenue and made a report
to the Government on December 6, 1979. The said Minister had dealt with
the representation and rejected it after the Board had· made its report to the
Gcivernment.

On November 19·, 1979, the detenu made an application io the Central
'Govemmeht for revocation of the order of his detention under section 11 of
COFEPOSA and this has not been dealt with by that Government.

The petitioner inter alia, contended that the detenu had a right to move
F the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention and non·
consideration vitiates the . detention.

Allowing the petition, the Court ,

HEID: ! ,Section 3(2) of COFEPOSA lll<llldates the State Government
'tO; send a . report to the Central Government. But it does not mean that the
G representation made by the detenu, if any, should also be sent along with that
report, [742 El
2. The Central Government is under a duty to consider the representation
made to- it by the detenu for revoking his detention, even if it s-imply repeats
the same allegations, statement of facts, and ar~ments which were contained
in the representation made: to the detaining authority. .It is common experience
H that an argument or submission based on certain facts, which does not appeal
-to a tribunal or authOfity of first instance, - may find acceptance with a higher
tribunal or supetvisory authority. [742 E·FJ ,
SABIR AHMBD v. UNION (Sarkaria, !.) 739

3. Whether or not the detenu has under Section 11 a legal right to make A
a representation to the Central Government is not the real question. The nub
of the matter is, whether the power conf~rred by Section 11 on the Central· '
Government, carried with it a duty to consider any representation made by
the deteD.u, expeditiously. The power under Section 11 may either be exercised
if on information received by the Central Government from its own sources
including that supplied undor Sectio.n 3 by the State Government, or, from the
detenu in the form of a petition or representation. , Whether or not the Cen- B
tral Gov~rnment on such petitioll/representation revokes the detention is a
matter of discretion. But this discretion is coupled with a duty, that duty
is inherent in the very nature of the jurisdiction. [742 F-H, 743 A]
4. The power under s'ection 11 is a supervisory powe(. It is intended to
be an additional check or safeguard against the improper exercise of its power
of detention by the detaining authority or the State Government. If this sta· C
tutory safeguard is to retain its meaning and efficacy, the Central Government
must discharge its supervisory responsibility with constant 'vigilance and watch-
ful care. The· report received under section 3, or any communication or
petition received from the detenu must be considered with reasonable expedi-
tion. [743 A-BJ
S. What is 'reasonable expedition' is a question depending on the circums- D
ta~ 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
d,ue to' negligence, callous. inaction, avoidable redtapism and unduly protracted
procrastination. [743 B-Cl '
In the instant case, in the absence of a specific denial in the counter-
affidavit ,of the Central Govt., inescapable conclusion is that the Central Gov- E
ernment has not at all considered the repr'esentation made by the detenu
requesting for revocation of his detention under section 11 of COPE.POSA.
[745 &Fl

Shyiun Amba/al Siroya v. Union of India, [1980] 2 SCR 1078 and Tara
Chand v. State of Raiasthan and Ors., (W.P. No. 1639179) deci<fed on February
13, 1980 followed. F
Dhana Aliklum v. State of West Bengal, [1975] Suppl S.C.R. 124; distin-
guished.
Ram BaU Rajabhar v. State of West Bengal and Ors., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 63,
referred to.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ' Writ Petition No.. 168 of 1980.
G
(Under Article 32 6f the Constitution)
Harjinder Singh for the Petitioner.
M. N. Shroff for the-Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
SARKARIA, J. This is a writ petition filed by one Sabir Ahmed
to challenge the detention of his brother, Dawood Hasan Sheikh
74:0 SUl'REME COURT REPOil.TS " [1980] 3 S.C.R.

.Ibrahim, under the Conservation of Forei&n Exchange and Preven·
tio11. of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to ail the
COFEPOSA).
The detenu was in ·the custody of the Customs whee. on
September 8, 1979, he was produced before the Metropolitan
B Magistrate, Esplanade Court, Bombay and was remanded to judicial
·custody and later on granted bail by the Sessions Judge by an order,
dated September 28, 1979.
On October 2, 1979, an order of detention passed under Section

c
3(1) of COFEPOSA by_'Shri Pradhan, the Secretary to Maharashtra
Government in the Home Department, was served on him. The
grounds-0f detention were also served on him on the same date.
i '.

On November 14, 1979, the detenu made a representation to the
detaining authority, in which he inter a/ia asked for supply of the
copies of doc1ljllents and statements relied upon in the'grounds of
D detention. The representation of the detenn was not dealt with by
Shr~ Pradhan, but by the Minister of State in the Home Ministry
of the State Government, and was rejected on December 10,
1979. The Minister is said to .have been 'aut\lorised to deal
with the representation of detenus by a Standing Order made
by the Chief Minister on December 3, 1979. In. the mentime,
.E the Advisory Board met and considered the representation of
the ·detenu and ·tnade a report to the Government on December 6,
1979 for approval of the detention. The said Minister had dealt
with the representation and rejected it after the Board had made its
reports to the -Oovernment.

On November, 19, 1979, the detenu made an application to the
Central Government for revo9ation of the• order :of his detention
under Section ·11 of COFEPOSA, and this has not been dealt with
by that Government till today.
Mr. Jeth Malani, appearing for the detenu, has made four sub·
missions ·
G
1 (1) The Minister of State was not competent to dispose of the
representation of the detenu, because the Order dated December 3, )-
1979, made by the Chief Minister did not invest him with the neces· ·
sary authority to dispose of the representation.
•H (2) The representation has not been dealt with expeditiously ,by
the State Government. On the other hand, it was mechanically sent
for ·remarks to the customs Department on November 18, 1979, and
"; :---

'
SAJllR AHMED v. UNION (Sarkaria, J.) Ul

tnereafter the report of the Customs Department was received by the
State Government on November 28, 1979.
(3) The application of the detenu for oblaiui1ig copies of the
relevant documents was improperly rejected, and as a result, he
has been deprived of his constitutional right of making an effective
representation. •
(4) The detenu had a right to move the Central Government for
revocation of the order of his detention. For that purpose, he sub-
mitted a petition addressed to the Central Government on November

r 19, 1979. But, the Central Government has callously ignored it and
has not dealt with it so far. This delay and inaction fo(anin.definite
period, which now exceeds four months, vitiates the detention. Re-
c
liance for this contention has been placed on two recent judgments
of this Court in Shyam Ambalal Siroys v. Union of India & Ors.(1)
by a Bench of three learned Judges; and Tara Chand v. The State
of~Rajasthan & Ors. (W. P: (Crl) No. 1639 of 1979, decided on
D
February 13, 1980, by a Bench of two learned Judges).

We will take the last contention first, because, in the course of his
arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner while;reserving his
arguments on other points, has dealt with this ·point only.

On the other hand, regarding contentioU:4,IMr. Datar, appearing
for the Central Government, submits that Section 11 of COFEPOSA
merely confers a discretion on the Central Government to revoke
or modify an order of detention made by the State Government.
It does not confer any right or privilege on the detenu to make a
representation to the Central Government under that Section..
I'

r In line with the same argument, Mr. Nain, appearing for the res-
pondent•State, submits that Section 11 merely· gives a power which
is to be exercis~d by the.Central Government suo motu after receiving
the report from the State Government under Section· 3(2). It i(con-
• ceded that the power conferred on the Central Government under
Section II is a supervisory power but that, according to the learned
counsel, does not mean that the. detenu has been invested with a right
to move the Central Government for revoking the detention. Mr.
Nain further tried to distinguish~ the Syham Ambalal Siroya's case
(ibid) on the ground that therein, the Eietaining authority was the
Central Government, while in the instant case, the order was passed
by the State Government.
(I) [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1078
~-) .;-.;". $· ·H ~;4, ''*.:" ;:{-;::'- "
; ~~-L ~ --- l. : :~ -1-
- ·<>-~·
·~'i'.;;-

74.2 I SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.11:.

A Both the learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, relied
upon the decision of thiS Court in Mohd. Dhana Ali Khan v. State of
West Benga/(I) Counsel further submitted that what has been said by
. Fazal Ali, J. in Mohd. DhanaAli Khan's case, conflicts with the ratio
of Shyam Ambalal Siroya's and Tarachand relied upon by the peti-
tioner. It is urged that on account of thiS conflict, the matter should
• be referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration. It is maintained
that the last mentioned two cases have not been correctly decided.
If the ratio of these two decisions-proceeds the argument-is liberally
applied, then it mean~ that the detenu has a right to vex the Central
Government by making endless representations even where no new "
c facts have come to light.
In the alternative, Mr. Nain contended that oniy in a case where
1 I •

the representation is based on the discovery of new matter or fac\8,
the Central Government may be required to consider it. The proper
course for the Court even in such cases, according to Mr. Nain, is to
issue a direction to the Central Governnient to consider the represen-
D tation within a period specified by it and not to quash the detention,
In this connection reference was made to Ram Bali Rajbhar v. The
State of West Bengal & Ors. (2).

It is true that Section 3(2) of COFEPOSA mandates the State ..
Government to send a report to the Central Government. But it does
B not mean that the representation made by the detenu, if any, should
· also be sent along with that report. There appears to be no substance
~-
in the contention that the Central Government is under no dnty to
consider a representation made to it by the detenu for revoking his
detention, if it simply repeats the same allegations, statement of facts,
and arguments which were. contained in the representation made to
r the detaining authority. It is common experience that an argument or

~
submission based on certain facts, which does not appeal to a tribunal
or authority of first instance, may find acceptance with a higher tribunal
or supervis91'Y authority. Whether or not the detenu has under section
11 a legal right to make a representation to the Central Govci;nment

'G
is not the real question. The nub of the matter is, whether the power
conferred by Section 11 on the Central Government, carries with it a •
duty to consider any representation made by thedetenu,expcditiously.
The power under section 11 may either be exercised if on information
received by the Central Government from its own sources including
···r-
· that' supplied under Section 3 by the State Government, or, from the
... detenu in the form of a petition or representation. Whether or not the . ,
H
(!) (1975] Supp. SC.R. 124.
(2) [19751 3 S.C.R. 63.
{1
ii
!,\
t•
"d

iil,h ..
\,,~, ~. ' ·~-!
..
n -

SABIR AHMED v. UNION (Sarkar/a, J.) , 74 3

Cel!tral Government on such petition/representation revokes the de- A
tention is a matter of discretion. But this discretion is coupled with a
duty. That duty is inherent in the very nature of the jurisdiction. The
power under section II is a supervisory power. It is intended to be an
additional check or safeguard against the improper exercise of its
power of detention by the detaining authority or the State Government.
If this statutory safeguard is to retain its meaning· and efficacy, the B
Central Government must discharge its supervisory responsibility with
constant vigilance and watchful care. The report received under Section
3, or any communication or petition received from the detenu must
• be considered with reasonable expedition. What is 'reasonable e1·
pedition' is a question depending on the circumstances of the parti·
cular case. No hard and fast rule as to the measure of reasonable time c
can be laid down. But it certainly does not cover the delay due to
negligence, callous inaction, avoidable redtapism and unduly·protrac-
ted procrastination.

The plea specifically taken by the writ petitioner in Ground No.
D
-ll XXII of his affidavit, runs as under '.
"The petitioner says that he made a representation to the .
Central Government for revocation of the detention order under
section 11 of the COFEPOSA. The Central Government has
not considered the said representation and thus the detenu's
·j- continued. detention is illegal." E
Earlier, in paragraph 7 of his affidavit, also, he had mentioned
that he had sent a communication to the Central Government, De·
partment of Revenue, COFEPOSA Branch, asking fer revocation
of the detention order, b11t no reply had been received. In spite of.the
fact that this ground was specifically taken, Mr. R.K. Thawani, Deputy p

r Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, has not
in bis counter-affidavit said anything with regard to this plea or the
facts alleged in the affidavit of the writ-petitioner. The conclusion is,
therefore inescapable that the Central Government has not at all
'f: considered the petition made by the detenu requesting for revocation
of his detention under section 11. According to the allegations in the G
writ petition, this written communication was sent by the detenu to
the Central Government on November 19, 1979. We are now in the
• -(
middle of March, 1980.
Contrary to the counter-affidavit filed hy Mr. S. M. Sule, Under-
Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, B
Mr. Nain suhmitted that, in his opinion, the Central Government
did not consider the representation/petition of the datenu because it
I,,
/)
. ., ·~
,, ·•°ik~M+ie
Sll~REMf, COuRT RBPORTS [1-980) 3 s.c.R, ·

/>. might be labouring under a misappre)lension that once a writ petition
for habear r.orpus has been filed on behalf of the detenu and the· court
is seised of the ca;e, anything done. by the Government thereafter might
amount to contempt of col)rt. The apologetic explanation imagined
by him contrary to the stand taken in Mr. Sule's counter-affidavit,
. t-

is hardly an excuse for not performing its statutory duty by the Central
;B Government, Although, about four months have gone by since the -t
despatch of the representation by the detenc, yet the Central Govern-
ment has not applied its mind to it. It has just ignored it.

The ratio of Tara Chand's case and Shyam Ambalal Siroya'• case ~-
'l-
-c
applied with all its force to the facts of the instant case. The decision
i11 Mohd. Dhana Ali Khan, (sµpra) stands on its own peculiar facts.
In principle, there is no conflict between the ratio of that case and
'1 ,,
the two subsequent decisions aforesaid.
.,
In Tara Chand's case, the order of detention was passed by the
Government of Rajasthan, and the detenu .had addressed a represen-
'.D tation to the President, who forwarded it to the Finance Ministry of
the Union Government for necessary action. It was common ground ;.
that the representation was not considered by the Union of India,
nor was any order passed on it. On these facts, :Murtaza Fazal Ali,
J., speaking for the Court, held that section 11(1) of the COFEPOSA
''clearly enjoins that the Central Government may revoke or modify ' ~I
<E · an order passed by the State Government. .. Once a representation
is made to the Central Government, it is duty .bound to consider the
.,
$!Ifie in order to exercise its discretion either in rejecting or accepting
it. If there is inordinate delay in considering •the representation that
would clearly amount to violation of the provisions of Article 22(5)
so as to render the detention unconstitutional and void."
,.F ,' ·'
The ratio of Tara Chand's case was followed in Shyam Ambala/
Siroya'• case, wherein a stand similar to the one before us was taken
.by the Central Government in the counter-affidavit filed on its behalf..
'-'t .
•
The stand taken was that the detention order was not vitiated merely
because the CentralGovernment had not considered the representa- ~
-G tion of the detenu made to it for revocation of the detention under
section _11 of the COFEPOSA. The Court rejected this contention
')--.
with this observation; •
"The power of the Central Government to revoke the order
of detention implies that the detenu can make a representation
JH for exercise of that power. Any petition for revocation of an
order of detention should be dealt with reasonable expedition •••
It may be permissible for the Central Government to ~ke re~son•
ISi!
Ii

-;;..·~·· ! ,..., -·;-,,.f.
~-
I SABIR AHMED v. UNION (Sarkaria, J.) 745

--able time for disposing any revocation petition. But it would A
not be justified in ignoring the representation for revocation
of the detention as ~. statutory duty is cast upon the Central
Government. It is necessary that the Government should apply
its mind and either revoke the order of detention or dismiss the
petition, declining to order for revocation."
B
In that case, the representation addressed to the Central Govern·
ment was not forwarded to the Central Government and, as such,
•' was left unattended for nearly four months.
It is true that in Shyam Ambalal Siroya's case, the detaining autho·
y rity was a Additional Secretary to the Central Government. But he
',
did not derive his authority to pass the detention order from the rules
of business framed by the Central Government under Article 77(3)
.of the Constitution. Such authority was given to him under the statute
itself. It is, therefore, not correct to say that in that case, the order
passed by the detaining authority was to be deemed an order passed
by the Central Government itself. In any case, so far as the ratio of D
that decision is concerned, this is a distinction without a difference. -
Shyam Amdalal Siroya's case was a decision rendered by ~a Bench
of three learned Judges. We are bound by the ratio of the two afore·
said decisions. Respectfully following the same, we hold that since
a repre•entation made by the detenu to the Central Government has
E
been ignored and left unattended for a period of about four months,
the detention cannot be justified as being according to procedure
presiribed by law. In view of the stand taken by the respondent-Sine
in the coun !er-affidavit filed on its behalf, we do not feel inclined, in
the circumstances of the case, to issue a direction to the Central Go·
vernment to consider and dispose of the representation of the detenu,
-i F
now.
We, therefore, allow this writ petition and set aside the detention
and direct release of the detenu.
These, then, are the reasons which we now give in support of our
order, dated March 14, 1980, by which we allowed Sabir Ahmed's G
writ petition and ordered the detenu's release.

S.R. Petition allowed.

9-403 SCI/80