A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case revolves around a preventive detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The case examines whether the non-supply of vital documents, delays in addressing representations, and improper transmission of the detenu’s representation violated Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution, thereby rendering the detention unconstitutional. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards, holding that non-supply of critical relied-upon documents and negligent delays in representation decisions vitiate preventive detention orders. Additionally, the Court stressed the duty of authorities to expeditiously handle representations to safeguard constitutional rights.

Keywords:

1. Preventive Detention
2. COFEPOSA
3. Right to Representation
4. Fundamental Rights
5. Procedural Safeguards

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 3083 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date:
12 September 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and K.V. Viswanathan

vi) Author:
Justice B.R. Gavai

vii) Citation:
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 313

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India
• Section 3(1), COFEPOSA Act, 1974

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
N/A

x) Related Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Preventive Detention

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The petitioner, Jaseela Shaji, challenged the preventive detention of her husband, Shaji A.K., under the COFEPOSA Act. The detention order alleged that Shaji engaged in illegal foreign exchange transactions and hawala activities, affecting India’s foreign exchange reserves. The petitioner contended that the detention violated Article 22(5) due to the failure to provide vital documents and inordinate delays in addressing Shaji’s representation. The High Court of Kerala dismissed the habeas corpus petition, leading to the present appeal.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. A detention order dated 31 August 2023 was issued against the detenu, alleging involvement in hawala operations.
2. Searches revealed unaccounted currency, gold, and foreign exchange materials.
3. Detenu’s statements and other individuals’ testimonies formed the basis for detention.
4. Representations submitted by the detenu on 27 September 2023 were delayed and mishandled by prison authorities.
5. The detenu claimed critical documents, such as statements of a witness (Ms. Preetha Pradeep), were not supplied.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether non-supply of relied-upon documents (like witness statements) violated Article 22(5).
ii) Whether delays and mishandling of representations by the authorities violated constitutional rights.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) Non-supply of Documents:
The petitioner argued that statements of Ms. Preetha Pradeep were critical for an effective representation under Article 22(5). Failure to supply these vitiated the detention order.

ii) Delay in Representations:
The detenu’s representations were delayed by nine months, violating the mandate of expediency under preventive detention laws.

iii) Procedural Lapses:
The petitioner highlighted negligence by jail authorities in forwarding representations, emphasizing the constitutional right to expeditious decisions.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) Validity of Grounds:
The respondents argued that the detention was justified even without Ms. Pradeep’s statements due to other substantial evidence.

ii) Non-receipt of Representations:
They contended that representations were not received due to postal mishaps and were eventually addressed.

iii) Procedural Compliance:
The respondents asserted that delays were incidental and did not materially affect the detenu’s rights.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court held that non-supply of vital relied-upon documents (statements of Ms. Preetha Pradeep) and delays in representation handling violated Article 22(5). It emphasized the following principles:

• Procedural safeguards under Article 22(5) are mandatory.
• Every document forming the basis of detention must be supplied to the detenu.
• Authorities must promptly process representations, ensuring timely decisions.

b. Obiter Dicta:
The Court noted the evolving role of technology in expediting procedural requirements, suggesting representations be transmitted electronically.

c. Guidelines:
The judgment laid down clear procedural guidelines:

1. All relied-upon documents must be supplied to detenu without delay.
2. Representations must be forwarded and decided expeditiously.
3. Prison authorities must adopt technology to prevent delays.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment underscores the sanctity of procedural safeguards under preventive detention laws. It reiterates the duty of authorities to protect constitutional rights and avoid lapses that could render detention orders arbitrary. This case also reflects judicial scrutiny in upholding liberty even in preventive detention matters.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

1. Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, [2023] 11 SCR 958
2. M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India, (1990) 2 SCC 1
3. Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 1 SCC 416

b. Important Statutes Referred:

1. Article 22(5), Constitution of India
2. COFEPOSA Act, 1974