In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has quashed a 1993 detention order that was executed nearly 30 years later to detain a 62-year-old Kerala man, Abdul Rasheed. The division bench, comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse, underscored the
“unexplained and inordinate delay”
in executing the detention order. The court remarked,
“The unexplained and inordinate delay of thirty years in the present case does not justify the preventive custody of the petitioner. In the facts of this case, no attempts had been made to contact or arrest the petitioner. There is no explanation forthcoming for not taking any action to trace the whereabouts of the petitioner.”
Abdul Rasheed was taken into preventive detention in February of the current year. His initial arrest dates back to November 20, 1992, at the Mumbai airport. He was apprehended while attempting to depart for Dubai, carrying a significant amount of concealed foreign currency. Following this, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) deduced that Rasheed was involved in the unauthorized acquisition and covert transfer of foreign exchange out of India, violating the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA). Consequently, a detention order was issued against him on May 17, 1993, under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention Of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA Act). This order was only confirmed three decades later by the under secretary on May 24, 2023, mandating Rasheed’s detention for a year from February 28, 2023.
Challenging this decision, Rasheed approached the High Court, arguing that the ED failed to provide him with a copy of the detention order. The Court, in its judgment, emphasized that detaining Rasheed after such an extensive delay was unwarranted. The bench stated,
“It is not even the case of the authorities that in the last thirty years, the petitioner was engaged in any prejudicial activity or has indulged in any objectionable activity. We find substance in the ground of challenge that the detaining authority has not meticulously followed the procedure to serve the detention order, making it invalid due to the passage of time.”
This landmark decision highlights the importance of timely justice and the potential pitfalls of bureaucratic delays in the legal system.
