2022 (10) TMI 1136 - SC - Indian Laws

Detention of goods - failure to supply the legible copies of documents which were relied upon by the appellants while passing the order of detention under the provisions of the Act 1988 - right to make representation - right of personal liberty - main thrust on which the writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the order of detention was that respondent no.1 was not supplied with legible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention and that has taken away the valuable right of respondent no.1 in making an effective representation. HELD THAT - It is well settled that right to make a representation implies that the detenu should have all the information that will enable him to make an effective representation. No doubt, this right is again subject to the right or privilege given by clause (6). At the same time, refusal to supply the documents requested by the detenu or supply of illegible or blurred copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority amounts to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Although it is true that whether an opportunity has been afforded to make an effective representation always depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is the admitted case of the parties that respondent no.1 has failed to question before the detaining authority that illegible or blurred copies were supplied to him which were relied upon while passing the order of detention, but the right to make representation being a fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution in order to make effective representation, the detenu is always entitled to be supplied with the legible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority and such information made in the grounds of detention enables him to make an effective representation. The right of personal liberty and individual freedom which is probably the most cherished is not, in any manner, arbitrarily to be taken away from him even temporarily without following the procedure prescribed by law and once the detenu was able to satisfy while assailing the order of detention before the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction Article 226 of the Constitution holding that the grounds of detention did not satisfy the rigors of proof as a foundational effect which has enabled him in making effective representation in assailing the order of detention in view of the protection provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, the same renders the order of detention illegal and we find no error being committed by the High Court in setting aside the order of preventive detention under the impugned judgment. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legibility of documents supplied to the detenu.
2. Right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
3. Violation of procedural safeguards in preventive detention.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legibility of Documents Supplied to the Detenu:
The core issue in the appeals is whether the detenu was supplied with legible copies of documents relied upon by the detaining authority under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The High Court of Manipur set aside the detention orders dated 17th May 2021, on the grounds that the documents provided were illegible and blurred, thus depriving the detenu of the ability to make an effective representation. The detenu in both cases specifically mentioned in their writ petitions that the documents at various page numbers were "all blurred and not readable." The appellants, in their counter-affidavits, claimed that all relevant documents were supplied and that the detenu did not raise any objections during the detention proceedings.

2. Right to Make an Effective Representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution:
Article 22(5) of the Constitution guarantees the detenu the right to be informed of the grounds of detention and the right to make an effective representation. The Supreme Court reiterated that the right to make a representation implies that the detenu should have all the information that will enable him to make an effective representation. The Court cited several precedents, including *Smt. Dharmista Bhagat v. State of Karnataka*, *Manjit Singh Grewal @ Gogi v. Union of India*, *Mehrunissa v. State of Maharashtra*, and *Bhupinder Singh v. Union of India*, which emphasize that the supply of legible documents is essential for the detenu to exercise this right effectively.

3. Violation of Procedural Safeguards in Preventive Detention:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the non-supply of legible documents amounts to a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Court noted that even if the detenu did not raise the issue before the detaining authority, the fundamental right to make an effective representation remains protected. The Court referenced *Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union of India* and *Union of India v. Ranu Bhandari* to highlight that the denial of legible documents is a violation of procedural safeguards, rendering the detention order illegal. The Court concluded that the detenu's inability to make an effective representation due to the supply of illegible documents invalidates the detention order, affirming the High Court's judgment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the detention orders. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the right to make an effective representation is a fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, and any violation of this right, such as the supply of illegible documents, renders the detention order illegal. The Court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards in preventive detention to protect individual liberty and freedom.