Today(12th Sept), The Supreme Court ruled that individuals detained under preventive laws must receive all essential materials relied upon by authorities for their detention. However, documents referenced only in passing need not be provided.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(12th Sept), The Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of providing all critical materials relied upon by detaining authorities when ordering the preventive detention of a person. The ruling affirms that individuals detained under preventive laws have a constitutional right to receive the materials that form the basis of their detention, allowing them the opportunity to defend themselves adequately.
A bench consisting of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Mishra, and KS Viswanathan emphasized that while the detaining authority may not be required to supply documents referenced casually or in passing.
“All material relied on by detaining authorities for its subjective satisfaction to order detention order has to be supplied to the accused,”
-the Court ruled.
This directive aligns with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that all grounds for detention must be provided to the detenue, a fundamental right that safeguards personal liberty.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court took a strong stance on the right of the detenue to make a representation challenging the detention order. The Court ruled that this right cannot be compromised or dismissed due to negligence by jail authorities. The advancement of technology, according to the Court, plays a pivotal role in ensuring that representations can be made swiftly, preventing undue delays.
“The detenue’s rights cannot be denied simply due to the negligent or careless handling of their representation by the jail authorities.”
– the Court observed.
It added-
“In the age of technological advancement, a detenue’s representation can be sent to the detaining authorities instantly. Every day’s delay is significant in such cases.”
This assertion reflects the judiciary’s recognition of the evolving role of technology in ensuring timely communication and justice, especially in cases where personal liberty is at stake.
The Supreme Court delivered its ruling in response to an appeal challenging a Kerala High Court decision. The case involved the detention of an individual under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act). The detained individual, referred to as the detenue, had been held following a raid on his residence, where authorities allegedly discovered unaccounted foreign currency, gold biscuits, and silver. Based on the evidence, which included WhatsApp conversations and witness statements, the detaining authorities concluded that the individual was involved in unauthorized foreign currency dealings and issued the preventive detention order under the COFEPOSA Act.
The detenue’s wife, acting as the petitioner, challenged this detention before the Kerala High Court. She argued that not all documents, particularly a key witness statement, had been provided to the detenue. This, she claimed, undermined his right to make a proper representation against the detention order.
However, the Kerala High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the other materials supplied to the detenue were sufficient to justify the detention order. The High Court argued that the absence of a single witness statement did not prejudice the detenue’s ability to mount a defense.
Disagreeing with the Kerala High Court’s view, the Supreme Court held that the failure to supply all the necessary documents, including the contested witness statement, had indeed violated the detenue’s rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court made it clear that every document or piece of evidence relied upon to support a detention order must be provided to the detained individual.
The Court noted-
“Failure to supply documents has violated the detenue’s right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.”
This violation, the Court emphasized, was a critical error in the legal process and warranted the quashing of the detention order.
Another significant issue raised by the Supreme Court in its ruling was the negligence of jail authorities in forwarding the detenue’s representation challenging the detention order. The Court found that due to the careless attitude of jail officials, the detenue’s representation had not been delivered to the appropriate authorities for a prolonged period of nine months. This considerable delay further justified the annulment of the detention order.
The Supreme Court ruled-
“Due to the casual and negligent attitude of the jail authorities, the detenue’s representation did not reach the detaining authorities, causing a 9-month delay. The detention order is liable to be quashed on this basis as well.”
