In a significant judgment, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra quashed a detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The Court cited a violation of fundamental rights due to the non-supply of critical documents. The judgment declared that the failure to provide the detained individual, Appisseril Kochu Mohammed Shaji, with all the material relied upon by the detaining authority infringed upon his constitutional right to make an effective representation as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Jaseela Shaji, the wife of the detenu, approached the Supreme Court after the Kerala High Court dismissed her habeas corpus petition. Her husband, Appisseril Kochu Mohammed Shaji, was detained on 31st August 2023 under COFEPOSA for allegedly engaging in illegal foreign currency transactions without proper authorization. The detaining authority, the Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA Unit, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Department of Revenue, cited several grounds, including statements and evidence pointing to Shaji’s involvement in unaccounted foreign exchange dealings and hawala transactions.
The detention order was subsequently confirmed by the Under Secretary, COFEPOSA Wing, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Department of Revenue on 28th November 2023. The appellant challenged the detention on the grounds that crucial documents, specifically the statements of Ms. Preetha Pradeep, a key witness, were not supplied to the detenu, thereby infringing upon his right to make an effective representation against his detention.
Key Legal Issues
1. Non-Supply of Crucial Documents: The appellant argued that the non-supply of the statements of Ms. Preetha Pradeep, which were relied upon by the detaining authority, affected the detenu’s constitutional right under Article 22(5). The failure to provide these documents prevented the detenu from making an effective representation against the detention order.
2. Delay in Consideration of Representation: The appellant also highlighted a significant delay in the receipt and consideration of the detenu’s representation by the detaining authority and the Central Government. The representations, submitted on 27th September 2023, were not processed until June 2024, amounting to a delay of almost nine months.
Observations of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court delivered a detailed judgment emphasizing the importance of adhering to constitutional safeguards in cases of preventive detention. The Court observed:
“The constitutional requirements under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India are twofold: (1) The Detaining Authority must, as soon as practicable, after the detention, communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been made, and (2) the Detaining Authority must afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making the representation against the order of detention.”
The Court stressed that when documents are relied upon in the detention order, their non-supply directly affects the detainee’s right to make an effective representation. It was also highlighted that the detaining authority’s failure to provide the statements of Ms. Preetha Pradeep, a crucial link in the alleged illegal transactions, constituted a serious violation of Article 22(5).
Delay in Decision-Making
Regarding the delay in processing the detenu’s representation, the Court noted:
“The valuable right available to the detenu to have his representation decided expeditiously cannot be denied due to the negligent approach of the Prison Authorities.”
The Supreme Court found the nine-month delay in handling the detenu’s representation unacceptable and a breach of the constitutional mandate for a prompt decision. The Court held that such delay further compounded the violation of the detenu’s rights.
The Supreme Court quashed the detention order, citing both the non-supply of crucial documents and the undue delay in considering the representation. The Court’s ruling set aside the previous judgment of the Kerala High Court, which had dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by the appellant. The Court ordered the immediate release of the detenu unless he was required in any other case.
Case Title: Jaseela Shaji vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3083 of 2024
