http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: KAMLA KANAHIYALAL KHUSHALANI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARARASHTRA AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/01/1981

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA VARADARAJAN, A. (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR  814            1981 SCR  (2) 459  1981 SCC  (1) 748        1981 SCALE  (1)253  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1982 SC1315  (29)  R          1982 SC1500  (9)  R          1985 SC  53  (5)  F          1985 SC 696  (2)  RF         1990 SC 231  (17)  R          1990 SC 605  (15)

ACT:      Conservation of  Foreign  Exchange  and  Prevention  of Smuggling  Activities   Act,  1974-Section  3(3)-Failure  to simply documents  and materials  to  the  detenu-Effect  of- "effective representation"-Meaning of.

HEADNOTE:      In a  petition under  Art. 32  of the  Constitution the petitioner detenu  complained that  though  the  grounds  of detention were  served on  the detenu  on the date of arrest (October 20,  1980) the materials and documents on which the order of  detention was  based were not supplied to him till November 5,  1980 and that his representation dated November 18, 1980  was disposed of nearly a month later (December 15, 1980) and  that the  failure on  the part  of the  detaining authority to  supply the  requisite documents  and materials and  the   unexplained  delay   in  the   disposal  of   the representation  constituted   violation  of  the  safeguards contained in  Art, 22(5)  of the Constitution which vitiated the order of detention.      Allowing the petition, ^      HELD: It  is well  settled that  the law  of preventive detention has  to satisfy  a two-fold  test:  (1)  that  the protection and  the guarantee  afforded under  Art. 22(5) of the  Constitution  are  complied  with,  and  (2)  that  the procedure is just and reasonable. [463G]      Before an  "effective representation"  could be made by the detenu  he must  be  supplied  with  the  documents  and materials which  form the  basis of the grounds of detention and unless this is done there could be no question of making any representation,  much less an "effective representation" against the  order of detention. The documents and materials relied upon  in the order of detention form an integral part of the grounds and must be supplied to the detenu pari passu

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

the grounds of detention. [461B]      Smt. Icchu  Devi Choraria  v. Union  of  India  &  Ors. [1980] 4  SCC 531  and Smt.  Shalini Soni & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1980] 4 SCC 544 referred to.      If procedure  under Art.  21 has to be reasonable, fair and  just,   then  the   words  ’effective   representation’ appearing in Art. 22(5) must be construed so as to provide a real and meaningful opportunity to the detenu to explain his case to  the detaining  authority in  his representation. If the words  ’effective representation’  are interpreted in an artificial or fanciful manner, then it would defeat the very object not  only of  Art. 22(5)  but also  of Art. 21 of the Constitution. It  is settled  law that  it is  of the utmost importance that  all the  necessary safeguards  laid down by the Constitution  under Art.  21 or  Art.  22(5)  should  be complied with  fully and strictly and any departure from any of the  safeguards would  vitiate the  order  of  detention. [463E-F]      Maneka Gandhi  v. Union  of  India  [1978]  2  SCR  621 referred to. 460      In the  instant case  not only  were the  documents and materials not  supplied to the detenu alongwith the order of detention but  there had  been an unexplained delay of about 25 days in disposing of the representation of the detenu. [465B]      [Despite repeated  warnings by this Court the detaining authorities do  not care to comply with the spirit and tenor of  the   safeguards  contained   in  Art.   22(5)  of   the Constitution. There  should  be  no  difficulty  in  keeping copies of  the documents  and materials  referred to  in the order of  detention and  supplying them  to the detenu along with the order of detention. This dereliction on the part of the detaining  authorities results in the release of persons indulging in  such  anti-national  activities  as  smuggling though on  merits the  detentions in  suitable cases  may be justified.]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 5873 of 1980.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution.)      Ram  Jethmalani   and  Miss  Rani  Jethmalani  for  the Petitioner.      O. P. Rana and M. N. Shroff for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      FAZAL ALI,  J.- This  petition has  been filed  by  the sister of  the detenu  praying that  the detenu  be released because the safeguards provided by the constitution have not been complied  with. The  detenu was  arrested on 20-10-1980 when only the grounds of detention were served on him. On 5- 11-1980 the  documents and  materials on  the basis of which the order  of detention  was passed  were  supplied  to  the detenu. On  the  18th  November  1980,  the  detenu  made  a representation to  the Government  which was  disposed of as late as  the 15th December 1980. In support of the petition, Mr. Jethmalani  has submitted  two points on which alone, in our opinion, the petition must succeed.      In the  first place,  it was  pointed    out  that,  as already held  by  this  Court  the  grounds  served  on  the petitioner  were   not  accompanied  by  the  documents  and materials which  formed the basis of the order of detention, hence  the   safeguards  contained  in  Art.  22(5)  of  the Constitution not  having been  complied with,  the continued

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

detention of the detenu became void. Secondly, it was argued that even though the detenu had made a representation on 18- 11-1980, the  same was disposed of a month thereafter and no explanation  for  this  delay  has  been  furnished  by  the respondents. This  Court has held in numerous cases that the representations of  the detenu should be disposed of as soon as possible  and even  an unexplained delay of 12 to 14 days has been  held to  be  fatal  to  the  order  of  detention. Reliance has been placed 461 by Mr.  Jethmalani on  two decisions  of this  Court in Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India & Ors. which was later followed in  Smt. Shalini Soni Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. As regards the first case, which is a decision of two Judges of this  Court, it has clearly held that before an effective representation can be made by the detenu he must be supplied with the  documents and  materials which formed the basis of the grounds  of detention.  Unless this is done, there could be no  question of  making any  representation, much less an effective representation, against the order of detention. In this  connection,   Bhagwati  J.,  speaking  for  the  Court observed as follows:-           "Now it is obvious that when clause (5) of Article      22 and sub-section (3) of section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act      provide  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, statements or other      materials relied upon in the grounds of detention, they      must also  be communicated to the detenu, because being      incorporated in  the grounds  of detention,  they  form      part of  the grounds  and the  grounds furnished to the      detenu cannot  be said  to be complete without them. It      would not therefore be sufficient to communicate to the      detenu a  bear recital  of the  grounds of   detention,      but copies  of  the  documents,  statements  and  other      materials relied  upon in the grounds of detention must      also be  furnished to  the detenu within the prescribed      time subject  of course  to clause (6) of Article 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  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)  of the  COFEPOSA Act,  it is necessary for      the valid  continuance of  detention  that  subject  to      clause (6) of Article 22 copies of the 462      documents, statements  and other  materials relied upon      in the  grounds of detention should be furnished to the      detenu along  with the  grounds of  detention or in any      event not  later than  five  days  and  in  exceptional      circumstances  and   for  reasons  to  be  recorded  in      writing, not  later than  fifteen days from the date of      detention. If this requirement of clause (5) of Article      22  read   with  Section  3,  sub-section  (3)  is  not      satisfied, the  continued detention of the detenu would

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

    be illegal and void."      Mr.  Rana   for  the   State  has  submitted  that  the observations extracted  above do  not form  the ratio of the decision because  in a  subsequent  para  of  the  decision, Bhagwati, J.  had observed that at the most grounds could be given within  a period  of five to fifteen days of the order of detention. These observations, no doubt, are contained in paragraphs 7  and 8  of the judgment but they do not, in our opinion, form the ratio decidendi of this case but were made merely to  rebut the  extreme arguments  that could  be  put forward. This  Court made it very clear that even apart from the interpretation  placed by the Court on Art. 22(5) of the Constitution,  the   conclusion  is   inescapable  that  the documents and  statements which  formed  the  basis  of  the grounds of  detention must be supplied to the detenu without least possible  delay. It  is in  this  context  that  these observations were  made in paragraphs 7 and 8 Moreover, this position has  been made absolutely clear by a later decision of this  Court in  Smt. Shalini  Soni’s case (supra) where a Division Bench  of this  Court while  endorsing  Smt.  Icchu Devi’s case observed as follows:-      "The matter  may also  be looked  at from  the point of      view  of   the  second   facet  of  Article  22(5).  An      opportunity to  make a representation 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  the 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 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  Article  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 463      reference is  made in the ’grounds’ must be supplied to      the detenu as part of the ’grounds’."      The Court,  therefore, clearly  held that the documents and materials  relied upon  in the order of detention formed an integral  part of the grounds and must be supplied to the detenu pari passu the grounds of detention. If the documents and  materials  are  supplied  later,  then  the  detenu  is deprived  of   an  opportunity   of  making   an   effective representation against the order of detention. In this case, the court  relied upon  the ratio  in Icchu  Devi Choraria’s case (supra)  extracted above. We find ourselves in complete agreement with  the view  expressed by  the two decisions of this Court  and we are unable to accede to the prayer of Mr. Rana for  sending the  case for  reconsideration to a larger Bench. This  Court has  invariably laid  down that before an order of  detention can  be  supported,  the  constitutional safeguards must be strictly observed.      This Court  in Maneka  Gandhi v.  Union  of  India  has widened the  horizon of  Art. 21 and added new dimensions to various features of and concept of liberty enshrined in Art. 21. In  view of  the decision  in the  aforesaid case,  Art. 22(5) of  the Constitution  assumes a new complexion and has to be  construed liberally  and meaningfully so as to permit the legislature  to impose the minimum possible curbs on the precious rights  of  a  citizen,  by  virtue  of  preventive

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

detention.  If   a  procedure   under  Art.  21  has  to  be reasonable,  fair   and  just,  then  the  words  ’effective representation’ appearing in Art. 22(5) must be construed so as to provide a real and meaningful opportunity to detenu to explain  his   case  to   the  detaining  authority  in  his representation. If  the words ’effective representation’ are interpreted in  an artificial  or fanciful  manner, then  it would defeat the very object not only of Art. 22(5) but also of Art. 21 of the Constitution.      Thus, we  are of  the opinion  that in view of what has been laid  down in  Mankea Gandhi’s  case (supra)  and in  a number of  other cases following the aforesaid decision, the law of  preventive detention  has now  to satisfy  a twofold test :  (1) that  the protection  and the guarantee afforded under  Art.  22(5)  is  complied  with,  and  (2)  that  the procedure is just and reasonable. In this view of the matter unless the materials and documents relied on in the order of detention are  supplied to the detenu alongwith the grounds, the supply  of grounds simpliciter would give him not a real but merely  an illusory opportunity to make a representation to the detaining authority. 464      It is  well settled that the Court frowns on preventive detention without  trial because  the detenu  is deprived of the right  of proving his innocence in a trial by a court of law. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that all the necessary safeguards  laid down  by the  Constitution  under Art. 21  or Art.  22(5) should  be complied  with fully  and strictly and  any departure from any of the safeguards would void the  order of  detention.  This  is  so  because  in  a civilised society,  like ours,  liberty of  a citizen  is  a highly precious  right and a prized possession and has to be protected unless it becomes absolutely essential to detain a person in  order to  prevent him  from  indulging  in  anti- national activities like smuggling, etc. We are fortified in our view  by a  decision of  this Court in Sampat Prakash v. State of  Jammu &  Kashmir where  the following observations were made:      "that the  restrictions placed on a person preventively      detained must,  consistently with  the effectiveness of      detention, be minimal."      It is  a matter  of great  concern and deep dismay that despite repeated  warnings  by  this  Court,  the  detaining authorities do  not care to comply with the spirit and tenor of the  constitutional safeguards contained in Art. 22(5) of the Constitution.  It is  manifest that  when the  detaining authority applies  its mind  to the  documents and materials which form  the basis  of the detention, the same are indeed placed before it and there could be no difficulty in getting photostat copies of the documents and materials, referred to in the  order of  detention, prepared and attaching the same alongwith  the   grounds  of  detention,  if  the  detaining authority is  really serious  in passing  a valid  order  of detention. Unfortunately,  the constitutional safeguards are not complied  with, resulting  in the  orders  of  detention being set  aside by  the Court,  even though  on merits they might have been justified in suitable cases. We feel that it is high  time that  the Government  should  impress  on  the detaining authority  the desirability  of complying with the constitutional safeguards  as adumbrated  by the  principles laid down  in this  regard. We  would like  to suggest  that whenever a detention is struck down by the High Court or the Supreme Court,  the  detaining  authority  or  the  officers concerned who  are associated  with the  preparation of  the grounds of  detention, must  be held  personally responsible

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

and action  should be  taken against  them for not complying with the  constitutional requirements  and safeguards  (viz. delay in  disposing of the representation, not supplying the documents  and   materials  relied  upon  in  the  order  of detention pari  passu the order of detention, etc. etc.) or, at any rate, an explanation from the authorities concern- 465 ed must  be called  for by the Central Government so that in future persons  against whom  serious acts  of smuggling are alleged, do  not go scot free. In the instant case, not only were the documents and materials not supplied along with the order of  detention, but  there has been a delay of about 25 days in disposing of the representation of the detenu and no explanation for  the same  has been given. These are matters which must be closely examined by the Government.      For the reasons given above, we hold that the continued detention of  the detenu  is void. We allow the petition and direct the  detenu to  be released forthwith. A copy of this judgment be  sent to  the Home  Ministers of  all the  State Governments, Hon’ble  the Home Minister of the Government of India and  also the  Hon’ble Finance Minister, Government of India for necessary action. P.B.R.                                     Petition allowed. 466