Supply of vital documents in preventive detention cases mandatory: SC
The court reinforced the constitutional guarantee of personal freedom and stressed the importance of allowing detainees a fair opportunity to challenge detention orders
In a significant ruling that bolsters personal liberty, the Supreme Court on Thursday made it mandatory for all detaining authorities to furnish vital documents and statements to individuals placed under preventive detention. The decision by a bench headed by Justice Bhushan R Gavai reinforced the constitutional guarantee of personal freedom and stressed the importance of allowing detainees a fair opportunity to challenge such orders.
The bench, also comprising justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan, ruled that the failure to supply all relevant documents and statements, especially in a language the detainee is conversant with, hampers their right to effectively contest the detention.
Emphasising that the liberty of an individual is paramount and should be guarded zealously, the judgment set a high bar for detaining authorities, obliging them to not only inform detainees of the grounds of their detention but also ensure that all essential materials are provided in a comprehensible format.
“All such materials which have been relied upon by the detaining authorities in forming its subjective satisfaction must be supplied to the detenue,” said the bench. It added that the right to effective representation is a constitutional right that cannot be frustrated.
The court directed that the prison authorities and the competent authority in the central government are obligated to ascertain that all representations by persons under preventive detention are dealt with expeditiously because, in matters of liberty, there must be no delay.
The case involved a preventive detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act) upheld by the Kerala high court in March 2024.
The high court dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of the detenu, Appisseril Kochu Mohammed Shaji. It rejected the argument that the failure to supply a key witness statement, coupled with the fact that the detenu did not receive Malayalam translations of the documents, violated his right to make an effective representation.
The high court noted that Shaji’s involvement in illegal foreign currency dealings was clear from the evidence presented, and the detention was legally justified even without relying on the statement of a witness whose testimony was not provided to him.
The Supreme Court took a contrary view, holding that such procedural lapses significantly prejudiced the detenu and violated Shaji’s rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which obligated the detaining authorities to communicate the grounds of detention and afford them the earliest opportunity of assailing such orders of detention. It noted that the non-supply of the statement of a witness was a major lacuna that rendered the detention order bad in law.
The court came down hard on the prison authorities for their “callous and causal” approach in sending Shaji’s representation to the central government authorities, lamenting it took more than nine months for the representation to be sent and decided. It reminded the authorities that they are under a constitutional obligation as per Article 22(5) to ensure that representations against orders of detention are decided without delays.
On July 31, the bench ordered Shaji’s release forthwith, adding that a detailed judgment would follow. The judgment was read out in the court on Thursday by Justice Gavai.
Get real-time updates on the Election result Live, Haryana election result 2024 live and Jammu and Kashmir election results 2024 live.