Preventive Detention Law A Colonial Legacy, Confers Arbitrary Power; Every Procedural Lapse Must Benefit Detenue's Case : Supreme Court

While setting aside a preventive detention order, the Supreme Court observed that such laws in India are a colonial legacy and have great potential for abuse and misuse. The Court emphasized that laws conferring arbitrary powers to the state must be critically examined and used only in the rarest of rare cases.A Bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice V. Ramasubramanian said that, “Every procedural rigidity, must be followed in entirety by the Government in cases of preventive detention, and every lapse in procedure must give rise to a benefit to the case of the detenue. The Courts, in circumstances of preventive detention, are conferred with the duty that has been given the utmost importance by the Constitution, which is the protection of individual and civil liberties.”Brief FactsIn November 2021, the appellant and other syndicate members were arrested on an intelligence report about a syndicate of Chinese, Taiwanese, South Korean, and Indian nationals smuggling gold into India by officers from the Directorate Of Revenue in Delhi. In January 2022, the DRI sent a proposal to the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) to issue an order of detention under the COFEPOSA Act against the appellant, and subsequently, the detaining authority passed the detention order in February, 2022 and appellant was then arrested by the DRI. The appellant sent a representation letter to the Central Government, and later made another representation to the Advisory Board. After a hearing, the Advisory Board advised the Central Government to reject the representation, which was done after a 60-day delay. The appellant then filed a writ in the High Court seeking to quash the detention order, but it was dismissed on November 3, 2022.However, in January 2023, the Court released the appellant from custody as interim relief due to the demise of his father. Later, due to the expiry of the detention order, he was released from detention.The appellant has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court's judgment dated November 3, 2022. The High Court had denied the appellant's plea to quash the detention order on grounds of delay in considering his representation.ArgumentsThe Counsel for the appellant contended that as per Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, a representation made by the detenue in cases of preventive detention must be considered at the earliest, and an inordinate delay in considering the representation is grounds enough for the detention order to be set aside.Counsel for the appellant contended that the decisions of Apex Court in the case of K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India & Ors. and Ankit Ashok Jalan v. Union of India & Ors. Judgment, both of which are Constitution Bench judgments, which state that the Central Government must wait for the decision of the Advisory Board, are in direct contravention with Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in Pankaj Kumar Chakraborty And Ors. v. State of West Bengal and the Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal, and due to the apparent conflict, the issue needs to be referred to a Larger Bench.It was also contended that the documents supplied to the appellant herein as grounds for his preventive detention were illegible and in Chinese language, and hence on this ground also the impugned detention order as against the appellant must be quashed.The respondents contended that there was no discrepancy between the Pankaj case and the Ashok Jalan case as argued by the appellant. They argued that the decisions relied upon by the appellant were under the context of the Preventive Detention Act, whereas the Ashok Jalan case and Abdullah Kuni case were under the context of the COFEPOSA Act. Analysis By The CourtThe Apex Court said that preventive detention laws in India are a colonial legacy, and have a great potential to be abused and misused. Laws that have the ability to confer arbitrary powers to the state, must in all circumstances, be very critically examined, and must be used only in the rarest of rare cases.The Court also clarified that in cases of preventive detention, where a person is held in custody not for a crime committed but for a perceived risk of committing a crime, the Courts should always err on the side of caution and give the benefit of doubt to the detainee. Even minor lapses in procedural compliance should be resolved in the detainee's favor.The Court also stated that in cases of preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act, the detainee has the right to submit representations to the detaining authority, the Government, and the Advisory Board. According to Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution, these representations must be decided as soon as possible. If the representation is accepted by the Government or the detaining officer, the detainee is released. However, if the representation is rejected, the detention period continues.In this case, the Court found that while the detaining authority considered the...

Preventive Detention Law A Colonial Legacy, Confers Arbitrary Power; Every Procedural Lapse Must Benefit Detenue's Case : Supreme Court

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags