Holding

Any communication containing a demand for release and stating a ground or reason is a representation under Article 22(5) and must be considered promptly; failure to do so invalidates the detention.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined three writ petitions challenging detentions under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The petitioners argued that a communication dated July 27, 1980, sent by their counsel requesting the detainee’s release and copies of documents, was a "representation" under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and that the authorities had failed to consider it. The Court held that a representation need not follow any prescribed form; any request for release that states a ground or reason qualifies as a representation and must be considered at the earliest opportunity. It further clarified that the "grounds" of detention must include not only factual inferences but also the factual material and documents on which those inferences are based. Because the representation was not considered, the Court ordered the release of the detainees and allowed all three petitions. The judgment reinforced strict compliance with procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases.

Issues considered

Whether a communication requesting release and documents constitutes a "representation" under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Whether failure to consider such a representation violates the procedural requirements of Article 22(5) and warrants release of the detainee.
What constitutes the "grounds" of detention under Article 22(5) and whether copies of documents relied upon must be furnished to the detainee.
Whether delay in furnishing the documents forming the grounds vitiates the detention.

Legislation cited

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974s. 3(3), s. 8(1)
Constitution of Indias. Article 22(5)

Subjects

preventive detentionArticle 22(5)representationgrounds of detentionCOFEPOSAprocedural fairnessconstitutional law

Judgment

962

A SMT. SHALINI SONI ETC.
v.
B UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.
October 24, 1980

[R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]
c Representatfon to the Advisory Board under section 3 of Conservation of
Foreign Exchange and Preve111io11 of Smuggling Activities Ac1, 1974, nature of-
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 22(5), scope of, explained--Words and
phrase~ '"Grounds" under Article 22(5) meaning of.

Allowing the petitions, the Court

D HELD : (1) The representation by the detenu under the COFEPOSA has
not to be made in any prescribed form. There is no formula nor any magical
incantation like "open seasame" to 1fe repeated or chanted in order to qualify
a communication as a representation. So long as it contains a demand or a
request for the release of the detenu in whatever form or language couched
and a ground or a reason is mentioned or suggested for such release, there is
no option but to consider and deal with it as a representation for the purpose
E of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. [9650-E]

In the instant case the communication dated July 27, 1980 by the counsel
for the detenu in W.P. 4344 of 1980 was a ·representation which was in law
required to. be considered. The said representation admittedly not having. been
considered the detenu was entitled to be set at liberty. [965H-966A, C]

F (2) The obligation imposed on the detaining authority, . by Article 22(5) of
the Constitution, to afford to the detenu the earTiest opportunity of making a
representation, carries with it the imperative implication that the representa-
tion shall be considered at the earliest opportunity. Since all the constitu-
tional protection that a dt,tenu can claim is the little that is afforded by the
procedural safeguards prescribed by Article 22(5) read with Article 19, the
Courts have a duty to rigidly insist 1hat preventive detention procedures be fair
G ,and strictly observed. A breach of the procedural imperative must lead to the
release of the detenu. [966B]
(3} Article 22(5) has. two facets: (i) communication of the grounds on
which the order of detention has been made; (ii) opportunity of making a
representation against the order of detention. Communication of the grounds
pre-supposes the formulation of the grounds and formulation of the grounds
requires and ensures the application of the mind of the detaining authority to
H the facts and materials before it, that is to say, to pertinent and proximate
matters in regard to each individual case and excludes the elements of arbitra-
riness and automatism. [966G]
SHALINI SONI v. UNION (Chinnappa Reddy,!.) 963

(4) It is an unwritten rule of the law, constitutional and administrative,
•that whenever a decision making function is entrusted to the subjective satis-
faction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply his
mind to pertinent and proximate mattecs only, eschewing the irrelevant and
the remote. Where there is further an express statutory obligation to com·
municate not merely the decision but the grounds on .which the decision is
founded, it is a necessary corollary that the grounds communicated; that is,
!the grounds so made known, should be seen to pertain to pertinent and pro- B
ximate matters and should comprise all the constituent facts and, materials that
went in to make up the mind of the statutory functionary and not merely the
inferential conclusions. Now, the decision to detain a person depends on sub-
jective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The Constitution and the sta·
tute cast a duty on the detaining authority to communicate the grounds of
-detaining to the detenu. The grounds communicated must reveal the whole
-0f the factual material considered by the detaining authority and not merely c
the inferences of fact arrived at. The same result would follow if the
.matter is looked at from the point of view of the second facet of Art. 22(5),
namely the opportunity to make a representation against the order of detention.
,[966H·D] '
(5) The "grounds" under Article 22(5) .of the Constitution do not mean
mere factual inferences but mean factual inferences plus factual material which
led to such factual inferences. The "grounds" must be self-sufficient and .0
self-explanatory. Copies' of documents to which reference is made in the
..grounds" must be supplied to the detenu as part of the "gronnds". [1967E·F]
Smt. lcchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India & Ors., [1981] I S.C.R. p. 642,
explained and followed.
Khudiram Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 832
@ 848-49; Vakil Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr., A.I.R. 1974 SC
E
2337 ; Ganga Ramchand Bharvani · v. Under Secret my to the Gov~rnment @f
Maharashtra & Ors., [1981) I S.C.R. p. 343, applied.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 4344, 1899 and
4500 of 1980.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution) F

A. K. Sen, Herjinder Singh and M. M. Lodha for the Petitioner.
M. M. Abdul Khader, T.V.S.N. Charfi and ·Miss A. Subhashini
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.-By our orders dated October 7, 1980,
we directed the release of the three detenus whose de~ention under
the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act, 1974, was chaJ.lenged in these three Writ Petitions.
We now proceed to state our reasons. H
Rajesh Soni, the detenu in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4344 of
1980 was arrested 'on June 27, 1980. The order of detention as well
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

A as the grounds of detention were served on him on the same day.
On July 27, 1980, his Advocate addressed a communication to the·
Administrator, Delhi Administration, Delhi, alleging that the grounds
were vague, ( irrelevent and non-existent, that his client was unable
to make any representation as he had not been given copies of the·
statements, documents and materials relied upon by the detaining
authority in arriving at the satisfaction that Rajesh Soni should be
detained, that in view of the time limit prescribed by S:ec. 3 ( 3) of the .
COFEPOSA and in view of Art. 22 ( 5) of the Constitution the con-
tinued detention of his client was illegal and that he was entitled to-
be released forthwith. Reference was made to a judgment of the
Gujarat High Court where it had been held that if documents were
c not furnished within five days or fifteen clays, as the case might be,
the detenus were entitled to be released. It was further stated that
if the Administrator was no revoking the detention order, copies of
documents and material evidence relied upon in the grounds of deten-
tion should be forthwith supplied so as to enable the detenu to make
D a representation. The communication ended with a reiteration of
the request that the detention order should be revoked and the detenu
released forthwith. One of the main complaints of the learned counsel
for the detenu was that .the representation dated July 27, 1980'
made by the detenu through his Advocate was never considered by
the Administrator and no orders had been passed thereon till now.
E Copies of the documents were, however, furnished on August 6, 1980.
Meanwhile the Advisory Board met on July 30, 1980. The order of
detention was continued by the Administrator on August 9, 1980.
Another complaint of t,he learned counsel for the detenu was that
there was a delay of over one month in furnishing copies of docu-
ments which formed part of the grounds to the detenu and on that
F ground also the detention was vitiated. The learned counsel invited'
our attention to several judgments of this Court and in particular to·
a recent one of Bhagwati and Venkataramaiah JJ in /cchu Devi'
Chor.aria v. Union of India & Ors.(1).

The answer of the respondents to the challenge based on the·
G failure to consider the representation dated July 27, 1980 was that
the communication dated July 27, 1980 was not a representation at
all but was a mere request for copies of documents i:nd therefore the
detention could not be questioned on the ground of failure to consider
the detenu's representation. The answer to the challenge· based on
the delay in furnishing copies of documents was that the detaining
H authority was not obliged in law to furnish copies of documents relied·

(1) [1981] 1 SCR p. 642.
..
SHALINI SONI v; UNION (Chinnappa Reddy, !.) 96 5

upon in the grounds of detentiog. All that the detaining authority
was obliged to do under the law was to communicate to the detenu /
·all the basic facts and particulars which influenced the detaining
authority in arriving at the requisite satisfaction and that obligation
had been discharged in the present case. The learned counsel urged
that the view taken by Bhagwati and Venkataramaiah JJ in Icchu
Devi Choraria v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) was inconsistent with B
the view taken by this Court in a series of cases and that the judgment
required reconsideration.

The Writ Petition has to succeed on both the grounds. As we
mentioned earlier th,e answer of the respondents in regard to the
ground based on the failure of the detaining authority to consider c
the representation dated July 27, 1980 submitted by the detenu
through his Advocate was not that the representation was ever consi-
dered but that it was n~t a represent.ation at a!!. We are unable to
agree with the submission made on. behalf of the respondents. The
representation has not to be made in any prescribed form. There is
no formula nor any magical incantation like "open seasame" to be D
repeated or chanted in order to qualify a communication as a repre-
sentation. So long as it contains a demand or a request 'for the
release of the detenu in whatever form or language couched and a
ground or a reason is mentioned or suggested for such release, there
is no option but. to consider and deal with it as a representation for E.
the purpose of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. The communication
dated July 27, 1980 contains a demand that the detenu should be
· released forthwith. It mentions a reason for the demand for release,
namely, that copies of statements, documents and .materials relied
upon by the detaining authorit~ in arriving at the requisite satisfaction
were not furnished to the detenu and that the detention was therefore, F
illegal. In support of the claim that the detention was illegal refer-
ence was made to a decision of the Gujarat High Court. The com-
munication, then, ended with a reiteration of the request for the
release of the detenu. We find it impossible to read the communi-
caHon as anything but a' representation against the order of detention.
True the detenu also asked for copies of documents to enable him G
to make a representation if the detaining authority was not prepared
to accept his demand for revocation of the order of detention. The
request for copies of documents to enable the detenu to make a
further representation on merits as well as on other grounds in the
event of the detaining authority not agreeing to revoke the order of
detention for the reason mentioned in the communication would not H
divest the communication of its character as a representation. We
have no doubt that the communication dated July 27, 1980 was a
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

representation which "Yas in law required to be considered by the
detaining authority. Quite obviously, the obligation imposed on
the detaining authority, by Art. 22(5) of the Constitution, to afford
to the detenu the earliest opportuni~y of making a representation,
carries with it the imperative implication that the representation shall
be considered at the earliest opportunity. Since a.JI the constitutional
protection that a detenu can claim is the little that is afforded by the
procedural safeguards prescribed by Art. 22(5) read with Art. 19,
the Courts have a duty ~o rigidly insist that preventive detention
procedures be fair and strictly observed. A breach of the procedural
imperative must lead to the release of t,he detenu. The representation
dated July 27, 1980 was admittedly not considered and on that _,_
c ground alone, the detenu was entitled to be set at liberty.

In the view that we have taken on the question of the failure of
the detaining authority to consider the representation of the detenu
it is really unnecessary to consider the, second question raised on
behalf of detenu in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4344 of 1980. How-
ever, this question has been squarely and directly raised and, indeed,
it was the only question raised in the other two Criminal Writ Petitions
and we have, therefore, to deal wit.,h it.

Art. 22(5) may be reproduced here for a better' understanding
of the rival submissions. It says :
E
"22(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an
order made under any law providing for preventive detention,
the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, commu-
nicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been
made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making
F a representation against the order".

The Article has two facets : ( 1) communication of the grounds 1
on which the order of detention has been made; (2) opportunity of
making a representation against the order of detention. Communica-
tion of the grounds pre-supposes t,he formula:ion of the grounds and
formulation qf the grounds requires and ensures the application of the
mind of the detaining authority to the fac~s and materials before it,
that is to say to pertinent and proximate matters in regard to each
individual case and excludes the elements of arbvtrariness and auto-
matism (if one may be permitted to use the word to describe a
mechanical reaction without a conscious application of the mind).
H It is an unwritten rule of the law, constitutional and administrative,
that whenever -a decision making function is entrusted to the subjec-
tive satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obliga-
SHALINI SONI v. UNION (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 967

tion to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matters only
eschewing the irrelevant and the remote. Where there is further
an express statutory obligation to communicate not. merely the
decision but the grounds on which the decision is founded,
it is a necessary corollary that the grounds communicated, that
is, the grounds so made known, should be seen to pertain to
pertinen~ and proximate matters and should comprise all the consti- B
tuent facts and materials that went in to make up the mind of the
statutory functionary and not merely the inferential conclusions. Now,
the decision to detain a person qepends on the subjective satisfaction
of the detaining authority. The Constitution and the statute cast a
duty on the detaining authority to communicate the grounds of deten-
tion to the detenu. From what we have said above, it follows that c
the grounds communicated to the detenu mus( reveal the whole of
the factual material considered by the detaining authority and not
merely the inferences of tact arrived at by the detaining authority.
The matter may ·also be looked at from the point of view of the
second face~ of Art. 22 ( 5) . An opportunity to make a representation
D
against the order of detention necessarily implies that the detenu is
informed of all that has been taken into account against him in
arriving at the decision to detain him. It means that the detenu is
to be informed not merely, as we said, of ~he inferences of fact but
of all the factual material which have led to the inferences of fact.
If the detenu is not to be so informed the opportunity so solemnly E
guaranteed by the Constitution becomes reduced to an exercise in
futility. Whatever angle from which the question is looked at, it is
clear that "grounds" in Art. 22(5) do not mean mere factual

,
inferences but mean factual inferences plus factual material which
led to such factual inferences. The 'grounds' must be self-sufficient
and self-explanatory. In our view copies of documents to which
reference is made in the 'grounds' must be supplied to the detenu
as part of the 'grounds'.
This was what was decided by Bhagwati and Venkataramiah JJ
in Smf. lcchu Devi Choraria v. Union of lndia & Ors. (supra), it
· was observed by Bhagwati J., who spoke for the Court : G
"Now it is obvious that when clause (5) of Article 22 and
sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act provide
r(
that the grounds of detention should be communicated to the
detenu within five or fifteen days, as the case may be, what is
meant is that the grounds of detention in their entirety must be
furnished to the detenu. If there are any documents, state- JI
.'
ments or other materials relied upon in the grounds of deten-
tion, they must also be communica~ed to !he detenu, because
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

A being incorporated, in the grounds of detention, they form part of
the grounds and the grounds furnished to the detenu cannot be
said t'o be complete without them. It would not therefore be
sufficient to communicate tb the detenu a bare recital of the
grounds of detention, but copies of the documents, statements
and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention
B must also be furnished to the detenu within the prescribed time
subject of course to clause ( 6) of Aiiicle 22 in order to
constitute compliance with clause (5) of Article 22 and section
3, sub-section (3) of the COFEPOSA Act. One of the primary
objects of communicating the grounds of detention to the detenu
is to enable the detenu, at the earliest opportunity, to make a
c representation against his detention and it is difficult to see how
the detenu can possibly make an effective representation unless
he is also furnished copies of the documents, statements and
other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention. There
can therefore be no doubt that on a proper construction of
clause (5) of Article 22 read with section 3, sub-section (3)
D
of the COFEPOSA Act, it is necessary for the valid continuance
of detention that subject to clause ( 6) of Article 22 copies of
the documents, statements and other materials relied upon in
the grounds of detention should be furnished to the detenu
alongwith the grounds ·of detention or in any event not later
,than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons
E
to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days from the
date of detention. If this re:quirement of clause ( 5) of Article
22 read with s<:ction 3, sub-section (3) is not satisfied, the
continued detention of the detenu would be illegal and void".
It was argued that the observations of Bhagwati J were inconsistent
F with the earlier decisions of this Court and, therefore, the decision
of Bhagwati and Venkataramiah JJ required reconsideration.
Reference was made in particular to the decision in Khudiram Das
v. the State of West Bengal & Ors.( 1 ). We do not find anything in
Khudiram Das's case which necessitates reconsideration of Smt.
lcchu Devi Choraria's case. On the other hand in om view what
G
has been said in Smt. lcchu Devi Choraria's case is but a further
development and elaboration of what was said earlier in Khudiram
Das's case. In Khudiram Das's case it was said (at p. 848-849) :

"Section 8 (1) of the Act, which merely re-enacts the
constitutional requirements of article 22 ( 5), insists that all
H basic facts· and particulars which influenced the detaining

(I) [1975] 2 SCR 832 @ 848-49.
SHALINI SONI v. VNION1(Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 96.9

<1uthority in arriving at the requisite satisfaction leading io the A
making of the order of detention must be communicated to the
detenu, so that the detenu may have an opportunity of making
an effective representation against the order of detention. It is,
therefore, not only the right of the Court, but also its duty as
well, to examine what are the basic facts and materials which
actually and in fact weighed with the detaining authority in B
reaching the requisite satisfaction. The judicial scrutiny cannot
be foreclosed by a mere s~atement of the detaining authority
that it has taken into account only. certain basic facts and
materials and though other basic facts and materials .were
before it, it has not allowed them to influence its satisfaction.
The Cour~ is entitled to examine the correctness of this state-
c
ment and determine for itself whether there were any other basic
facts or materials, apart from those admitted by it, which could
have reasonably influenced the decision . of the detaining
authority and for tha~ purpose, the Court can certainly require
the detaining authority to produce and make available to the D
Court the ent,ire record of the case which was before it. That
is the least the Court can do to ensure observance of the
requirements of law by the detaining authority".

Earlier in Vakil Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmvr & Anr.,(1)
one of us (Sarkaria,· J.) had pointed out that apart from conclusions E
of fact, grounds had a factual constituent also. Grounds meant
.materials on which the order of detention was primarily based, that
is to say, all primary facts though not subsidiary facts or evidential
details. Recently in Ganga Ramchand Bharvani v. Under Secretary
to the Government of Maharashtra & Ors.( 2 ) it was observed by one
of us (Sarkaria, J.) speaking' for himself and Pathak J: F
· "The mere facts that the grounds of' detention served on
the detenu are elaborate, does not absolve the detaining authority
from its constitutional responsibility to supply all the basic facts
and materials· relied upon in the grounds to the detenu. In the
instant case, the grounds contain only the substance of the G
statements, while !he detenu had asked for copies of the full
text of those statements. It is submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that in the absence of the full texts of these
statements which had been referred to and relied upon in the
grounds 'of detention', the detenus could not make an effective
H
(l) AIR 1974 SC 2337.
(2) [1981] 1 SCR p. 343 .

.
~
.n
•i
?,: ~.

970 . SUPREME ~~~T REPORTS [198111 S.C.R.

A representation and there is disobedience of thi~ second cons-
tutional imperative pointed out in Khudiram's case. There
is merit in this submission".
One of the submissions of Shri Abdul Khader, learned counsel for
the respondents was that in sev1!ral earlier cases the question that
B was always considered was whether there was an adequate explana-
tion for the delay in the supply of copies after a request for such
copies had been made by the defenu but that the expression 'grounds'·
had never been understood to comprise factual mat1!rial as well as
factual inferences so tha\ failure to communicate the factual material
as part of the 'grounds' was straightaway to be treated as an
c infringement of the rule contained in the first facet of Art. 22 ( 5). ~
This has been sufficiently answered by Bhagwati J. in Icchu Devi
Choraria v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) and by one of us (Sarkaria .
J.) in Ganga Ramchand Bharvani v. Under Secretary to the Govt.
of Maharash~ra & Ots. (supra). It. is unnecessary for us to say any-
thing further.
D
Shri Abdul Khader finally advanced a desperate argument invok-·
ing the rule of "prospective ove.rruling" enunciated in Golaknath's
case. The rule has no application since Icchu Devi"s case did not
overrule any earlier case.

E All the three Writ Petitions 1lre therefore allowed.

V.D.K. Petitions allowed.

•

GIPN-SI-645 ~C/India/80-14·5·81--2,50()