1980 (9) TMI 290 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Petition for writ of habeas corpus under COFEPOSA - Delay in considering detenu's representations - Alleged infringement of constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5) - Negligence and callousness by detaining authority - Breach of constitutional imperatives - Release of detenu ordered.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of a detenu detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The detenu was arrested pursuant to a detention order issued by the Commissioner and Administration Secretary of the Home Department, Rajasthan. The grounds of detention were served promptly after the arrest, and subsequent events unfolded in the case.

The detenu's brother made a plea for revocation of the detention order, which was more of a complaint against a Customs Officer than a representation against the grounds of detention. This plea was rejected, leading to a meeting of the Advisory Board, which justified the detention. The State Government confirmed the detention following the Board's report.

Subsequently, the detenu made representations to the Central Government and the detaining authority seeking revocation of detention under COFEPOSA. However, these representations were allegedly not considered promptly, with delays in processing and forwarding them. The detaining authority's refusal to forward the detenu's representation to the Advisory Board was also contested.

The petitioner argued that there was an infringement of constitutional safeguards, citing failures to inform the detenu of his right to make representations, delays in considering representations, and refusals to forward representations for review. The counter-affidavit filed by the Additional Director of Prosecution acknowledged delays in processing the detenu's representations.

The judgment highlighted the obligation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution for prompt consideration of detenu's representations in cases of preventive detention. It concluded that there was a breach of these constitutional imperatives due to delays and negligence by the detaining authority. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate release of the detenu based on these grounds.