http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: SMT.GRACY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/02/1991

BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) RAY, B.C. (J) SHARMA, L.M. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR 1090            1991 SCR  (1) 421  1991 SCC  (2)   1        JT 1991 (1)   371  1991 SCALE  (1)211

ACT:     Constitution of India, 1950: Article   22(5)-Preventive detention  -Safeguards-Representation of detents  under  the Prevention   of   Illicit Traffic in  Narcotic   Drugs   and Psychotropic   Substances   Act-Addressed  to  the  Advisory Board-Consideration  by  Government  independent of  Board’s consideration-Dual obligation of both  the  authorities-mode of    address   only   a   matter   of   form-constitutional quarantee-Mandatory.      Prevention  of  Illicit Traffic in Narcotic  Drugs  and Psychotropic  Substances  Act,  1988:  Section  3-Preventive detention-Represenation  of  detents addressed  to  Advisory Board-Consideration  by  Government independent  of  Board’s consideration-Dual  obligation of both the  authorities-Mode of  address  only  a matter  of  formConstitutional  mandate underarticle 22(5)-Can’t be whittled down.

HEADNOTE:      The petitioner’s son was arrested on 19.10-1989 on  the accusation  that  he  and  his  brothers  were  involved  in extensive  illicit cultivation of ganja plants in  violation of  the  provisions  of  Narcotic  Drugs  and   Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Magistrate before  whom he was Produced, rejected the bail application. The Sessions Court  granted conditional bail. The detention  order  dated 25.1.1990  was served on the detenu on 30.1.1990. The  order stated  that though prosecution was likely to  be  initiated under  the  NDPS  Act, there was  every  likelihood  of  his continuing  the cultivation of ganja plants and  thus  there was  a compelling reason to detain him under the  Prevention of  Illicit  Traffic  in  Narcotic  Drugs  and  Psychotropic Substances  Act, 1988. The detenu was informed of his  right to make a representation to the detaining authority, Central Government  and  the  Central  Advisory  Board  against  the detention  order.  The  mode  of  representation  was   also indicated along with the grounds of detention, in accordance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.      In   accordance  with  the  procedure,   the    Central Government  referred the case to the Central Advisory Board. During  the  pendency of the reference, the  detenu  made  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

representation  to the  Advisory  Board. The Advisory  Board considered the reference along with  the  detenu’s                                                        422 representation  and  came to the conclusion that  there  was sufficient  cause  to  justify  his  preventive   detention. Thereafter,  the  Central  Government made  an  order  dated 24.4.1990  confirming  its earlier order and  directing  his detention for a period of two years.      In the present Writ Petition, the mother of the  detenu prayed  for quashing of the detention order contending  that there  has  been infraction of the guarantee  under  Article 22(5)  of  the  Constitution  as a  result  of  the  Central Government’s omission to consider the representation of  the detenu,  independent  of its consideration by  the  Advisory Board.  Petitioner also challenged the stand of the  Central Government  that there was no obligation on it  to  consider the  representation  of the detenu independently  since  the same  was  addressed to the Advisory Board and  not  to  the Central Government.      Allowing the Writ Petition, this Court,      HELD:  1. The obligation of the Government to  consider the  representation  is  different and in  addition  to  the obligation of the Advisory Board to consider it at the  time of  hearing the reference before giving its opinion  to  the Government.  Consideration  of  the  representation  by  the Government  has  to  be  uninfluenced by  the  view  of  the Advisory   Board.  The  detenu’s   right   to    have    the representation  considered  by  the Government under Article 22(5)   of  the  Constitution   is   independent    of   the consideration  of the detenu’s case and  his  representation by  the Advisory Board. [426G-H]      K.M.  Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul  Khader   v.   Union of  India and Ors., State of Karnataka and Ors., JT 1991 (1) SC 216; relied on.      2. Any representation of the detenu against the  order of   his detention has to be considered and decided  by  the detaining   authority,  the  requirement  of  its   separate consideration  by  the  Advisory  Board being an  additional requirement implied by reading together clauses (4) and  (5) of Article 22, even though express mention in Article  22(5) is  only of the detaining authority. The order of  detention is  by the detaining authority and so also the order of  its revocation  of the representation is accepted, the  Advisory Board’s  role  being merely advisory in nature  without  the power  to make any order itself. It is not as if  there  are two separate and distinct provisions for  representation  to two  different authorities viz., the detaining authority and the Advisory Board,  both having independent power to act on its own. (427G-H; 428A-B]                                                     423      3.  It  being settled that this dual  obligation  flows from  Art.  22(5) when only one representation is  made  and addressed to the detaining authority, there is no reason  to hold  that  the  detaining authority  is  relieved  of  this obligation merely because the representation  is   addressed to    the  Advisory  Board   instead   of   the    detaining authority   and   submitted  to  the Advisory  Board  during pendency  of the reference before it. So long as there is  a representation  made  by the detenu  against  the  order  of detention,  the dual obligation under Article  22(5)  arises irrespective  of  the  fact whether  the  representation  is addressed  to  the detaining  authority or to  the  Advisory Board  or to both. The mode of address is only a  matter  of form  which  cannot  whittle down  the  requirement  of  the Constitutional  mandate in Article 22(5) enacted as  one  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

the    safeguards  provided  to  the  detenu   in  case   of preventive detention. [428B-El     4.  In the instant case, there has been a breach by  the Central  Government of its duty under Article 22(5)  of  the Constitution  to  consider and decide   the   representation independently  of  the  Advisory Board’s opinion. The  order of  detention  dated 25.1.1990 as well as the  order   dated 24.4.1990   of  its  confirmation  passed  by  the   Central Government are quashed. [428F-G]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (CRL.)  No.  1218 of 1990.      (Under   Article  32  of  the  Constitution   of   India).      John Joseph and T.G.N. Nair for the Petitioner.      A.D.  Giri,  Solicitor General,  Ashok  Bhan,   Ms.  A. Subhashini and T.T. Kunhikannan for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      VERMA  J.  This writ petition under Article 32  of  the Constitution  of India is by the mother of the detenu   Noor alias  Babu  to quash the detention order  F.  No.  801/1/90 PITNDPS   dated   25.1.1990  passed under Section 3  of  the Prevention   of  Illicit  Traffic  in  Narcotic  Drugs   and Psychotropic  Substances  Act,  1988  (in  short   ’PIT’NDPS Act’)   and  the  order of confirmation  F.   No.   801/1/90 PITNDPS   dated  24.4.1990 ’passed under Section  9(f)  read with  Section  10(2)  of the PITNDPS  Act,  by  the  Central Government  directing  detention  of the   detenu    for   a period  of  two yeare w.e.f. 30.1.1990.  The  only  argument advanced  in support of this writ petition is infraction  of Article 22(5) of the Con-                                                     424 stitution of India. The facts material for the point  raised are stated hereafter.      The  detenu  was  arrested from his  family  estate  at Kochuveetil  House,  Kuthugal,  Udumpanchola  Taluk,  Idikki District, Kerala on 19.10-1989 on the accusation that he and his brothers were involved in extensive illicit  cultivation of  ganja  plants  (Cannabis Sativa)  in  violation  of  the provisions  of  Narcotic Drugs and  Psychotropic  Substances Act, 1985 (in short ’NDPS Act’), He was produced before  the Judicial  Magistrate who rejected his bail application.  The Sessions  Judge also rejected the bail application once  but late,  granted conditional bail. Thereafter,  the  detention order   dated  25.1.1990  was  served  on  the  detenu    on 30.1.1990.   It   was  stated  therein  that   even   though prosecution  of the detenu was likely to be initiated  under the  NDPS Act, there was likelihood of the detenu  indulging in  cultivation and production of narcotic drugs (ganja)  on the detenu being released on bail on account of which  there was  compelling  necessity to detain him under  the  PITNDPS Act.  The  detenu was informed that he had a right  to  make representation   to   the   detaining   authority,   Central Government  and  the  Central  Advisory  Board  against  the detention  order. The mode of address of the  representation to the Central Government and the Central Advisory Board was also indicated in the detention order along with the grounds of  detention  in  accordance  with  Article  22(5)  of  the Constitution of India. The detenu’s case was referred by the Central   Government  to  the  Central  Advisory  Board   on 2.3.1990.  During  pendency  of  the  reference  before  the Advisory  Board,  the  detenu  made  his  representation  on 24.3.1990  and  addressed  it to  the  Advisory  Board.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

Advisory  Board  considered the reference  relating  to  the detenu made by the Central Government and also the  detenu’s representation submitted to it. The Advisory Board, gave the opinion  that  there  was sufficient cause  to  justify  his preventive  detention. The Central Government then made  the order dated 24.4.1990 confirming his detention and  directed that the detenu Noor alias Babu be detained for a period  of two years w.e.f. 30.1.1990.      It  is admitted that the Advisory Board considered  the detenu’s  representation before sending its opinion  to  the Central  Government along with the entire  record  including the  representation  submitted  by the detenu.  It  is  also admitted  that  the  Central Government made  the  order  of confirmation  dated 24.4.1990 on receipt of the  opinion  of the   Advisory   Board,  but  there   was   no   independent consideration of the detenu’s representation by the  Central Government  at  any  time. In  the  counter-affidavit  filed initially by Shri A.K. Roy, Under Secretary to                                                        425 the  Government of India, this fact was not  clearly  stated and,  therefore, we directed an additional affidavit  to  be filed.  In the additional affidavit filed by Shri A.K.  Roy, it has not been disputed that the Central Government did not at   any   time   consider   independently    the   detenu’s representation addressed to and given to the Advisory Board. In  the  additional  affidavit, the  stand  of  the  Central Government    in   this  behalf  has   been   stated   thus:           "...... Since the detenu  in the present case  has          not   made  any  representation  to   the   Central          Government, the assertion in para 2 of the  grounds          of petition that no opportunity was afforded by the          Central Government to the said detenu is vehemently          denied.   The  question  of  consideration   of   a          representation  and  providing  of  an  opportunity          would only arise when a representation is duly made          to the Central Government."      On the above facts, the question is: Whether there  has been any infraction of the guarantee under Article 22(5)  of the  Constitution  as  a  result  of  Central   Government’s omission to consider the detenu’s representation independent of  its  consideration by the Advisory  Board?  The  Central Government’s stand is that the detenu’s representation being addressed to the Advisory Board to which  it  was  submitted during pendency of the reference before the Advisory  Board, there  was no obligation on the Central Government  also  to consider   the same independently since  the  representation was not addressed to the Central Government.      The  Constitutional  mandate  in  Article   22(5)   was considered recently by a Constitution Bench in K.M.  Abdulla Kunhi   and  B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India  and  Ors., State  of  Karnataka  and Ors., JT 1991 (1) SC 216, in  view of  some  conflict  in  earlier  decisions  of  this   Court regarding  the detaining authority’s obligation to  consider the   detenu’s   representation   independently   of     the Advisory      Board’s duty in this behalf. The  Constitution Bench held as follows:           "It is now beyond the pale of controversy that the           constitutional   right  to  make    representation           under   clause  (5)  of Article  22  by  necessary           implication guarantees the constitutional right to           a  proper  consideration  of  the  representation.           Secondly,  the  obligation of  the  Government  to           afford  to  the  detenu  an  opportunity  to  make           representation  is distinct from the  Government’s           obligation to refer the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

                                                      426           case  of detenu  along with the representation  to           the  Advisory  Board  to enable  it  to  form  its           opinion and send a report to the Government. It is           implicit in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22 that           the  Government  while  discharging  its  duty  to           consider  the representation, cannot  depend  upon           the views of the Board on such representation.  It           has  to  consider the representation  on  its  own           without  being influenced by any such view of  the           Board.   The  obligation  of  the  Government   to           consider the representation is different from  the           obligation   of   the  Board   to   consider   the           representation   at  the  time  of   hearing   the           references.    The   Government   considers    the           representation  to ascertain  essentially  whether           the  order is in conformity with the  power  under           the  law. The Board, on the other hand,  considers           the representation and the case of the detenu   to           examine whether there is sufficient case (sic) for           detention.  The consideration by the Board  is  an           additional  safeguard  and not  a  substitute  for           consideration   of  the  representation   by   the           Government.  The right to have the  representation           considered  by the Government, is  safeguarded  by           cl. (5) of Article 22 and it is independent of the           consideration   of  the  detenu’s  case  and   his           representation by the Advisory Board under cl. (4)           of  Art.  22 read with Section 8(c)  of  the  Act.           (See:  Sk.  Abdul Karim & Ors. v.  State  of  West           Bengal,   [   1969]  1  SCC  433;   Pankaj   Kumar           Chakrabarty  &  Ors.  v.  State  of  West  Bengal,           [1970]1  SCR  543;  Shayamal  Chakraborty  v.  The           Commissioner of Police Calcutta and Anr., [  1969]           2  SCC  426; B. Sundar Rao and Ors.  v.  State  of           Orissa, [ 1972] 3 SCC 1 1; John Martin v. State of           West Bengal, [1975] 3 SCR 2 1 1; S. K. Sekawat  v.           Stale  of  West  Bengal, [1975]   2  SCR  161  and           Haradhan Saha & Anr. v. State of IVest Bengal  and           Ors., [1975] 1 SCR 778)."                                         (emphasis  supplied)      It is thus clear that the obligation of the  Government to consider the representation is different and in  addition to the obligation of the Board to consider it at the time of hearing  the  reference  before giving its  opinion  to  the Government.  Consideration  of  the  representation  by  the Government  has  to  be  uninfluenced by  the  view  of  the Advisory  Board.  In short, the detenu’s right to  have  the representation  considered by the Government  under  Article 22(5)  is independent of the consideration of  the  detenu’s case and his representation by the Advi-                                                        427 sory Board. This position in law is also not disputed before us.      The learned Solicitor General, however, contended  that in  the present case there being no representation addressed to the  Central Government,  the  only  representation  made by   the   detenu   being addressed to  the  Advisory  Board during  pendency  of  the  reference, there was in  fact  no representation  of  the detenu  giving rise to  the  Central Government’s   obligation  to  consider  the    same.    The question is: Whether this contention can be accepted in  the face   of  the  clear  mandate  in  Article  22(5)  of   the Constitution?      It   is   undisputed  that  if  there   be   only   one

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

representation  by  the detenu  addressed to  the  detaining authority,  the  obligation  arises under Article  22(5)  of its consideration by the detaining  authority independent of the  opinion  of  the  Advisory Board  in  addition  to  its consideration  by  the  Advisory  Board  while  giving   its opinion.  In other words, one representation of the   detenu addressed only to the Central Government and not also to the Advisory  Board  does  not  dispense with the requirement of its consideration also by the Advisory Board. The  question, therefore,   is:   Whether  one  of   the   requirement   of consideration  by  Government  is dispensed  with  when  the detenu’s   representation instead of being addressed to  the Government  or also to the Government is addressed  only  to the  Advisory  Board  and submitted to  the  Advisory  Board instead  of  the  Government?  On  principle,  we  find   it difficult   to   uphold  the  teamed   Solicitor   General’s contention  which   would reduce the duty of  the  detaining authority from one of substance to mere form. The nature  of duty imposed on the detaining authority under Article  22(5) in  the  context of the extraordinary  power  of  preventive detention  is sufficient to indicate that strict  compliance is necessary to justify interference with personal  liberty. It  is more so since the liberty involved is of a person  in detention  and not of a free  agent. Article 22(5) casts  an important duty on the detaining authority to communicate the grounds  of  detention  to the detenu  at  the  earliest  to afford   him   the   earliest  opportunity   of   making   a representation against the detention order which implies the duty to consider and decide the representation when made, as soon  as  possible.  Article 22(5) speaks  of  the  detenu’s ’representation   against  the  order’,  and   imposes   the obligation   on   the   detaining   authority.   Thus,   any representation  of  the  detenu  against the  order  of  his detention has to be considered and decided by the  detaining authority, the requirement of its separate consideration  by the  Advisory  Board   being   an   additional   requirement implied  by reading together clauses (4) and (5) of  Article 22, even though express mention in Article 22(5) is only  of the detain                                                        428 ing  authority. Moreover, the order of detention is  by  the detaining authority and so also the order of its  revocation if the representation is accepted, the Advisory Board’s role being  merely advisory in nature without the power  to  make any order itself. It is not as if there are two separate and distinct  provisions  for representation  to  two  different authorities  viz. the detaining authority and  the  Advisory Board, both having independent power to act on its own.      It being settled that the aforesaid dual obligation  of consideration of the detenu’s representation by the Advisory Board  and  independently by the detaining  authority  flows from  Article  22(5) when only one  representation  is  made addressed to the detaining authority, there is no reason  to hold  that  the  detaining authority  is  relieved  of  this obligation merely because the representation is addressed to the  Advisory Board instead of the detaining  authority  and submitted  to  the  Advisory Board during  pendency  of  the reference  before it. It is difficult to spell out  such  an inference  from the contents of Article 22(5) in support  of the  contention  of  the  learned  Solicitor  General.   The contents  of  Article 22(5) as well as the  nature  of  duty imposed thereby on the detaining authority support the  view that  so  long  as there is a  representation  made  by  the detenu   against the order of detention, the aforesaid  dual obligation  under Article 22(5) arises irrespective  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

fact   whether  the  representation  is  addressed  to   the detaining authority or to the Advisory Board or to both. The mode  of  address  is only a matter  of  form  which  cannot whittle  down the requirement of the Constitutional  mandate in  Article 22(5) enacted as one of the safeguards  provided to the detenu in case of preventive detention.      We  are, therefore, unable to accept the only  argument advanced  by  the learned Solicitor General to  support  the detention. On this conclusion, it is not disputed that there has  been  a breach by the Central Government  of  its  duty under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to consider and decide the representation independently of the  Advisory Board’s  opinion. The order of detention dated 25.1.1990  as well as the order dated 24.4.1990 of its confirmation passed by  the  Central Government are,  therefore,  quashed.  This shall not, however, affect the detenu’s prosecution for  the alleged  offence  and it shall also not be  construed  as  a direction  to  release  him in case he is in  custody  as  a result  of  refusal of bail. The writ petition  is  allowed, accordingly. G.N.                                       Petition allowed.                                                        429