A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case revolves around the dismissal of a writ petition by the Kerala High Court’s Division Bench concerning the detention order under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The order had been issued against the detenue, Abdul Raoof, for his involvement in gold smuggling. The petitioner argued the detention was vitiated due to non-supply of critical documents, specifically WhatsApp chats and electronic evidence, which allegedly hindered the detenue’s right to an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The High Court’s decision was inconsistent with a prior judgment by a Coordinate Bench, which had quashed similar detention orders for co-accused based on identical grounds. The Supreme Court quashed the detention order, emphasizing judicial discipline and the necessity of adhering to precedent when grounds and circumstances are identical.

Keywords: Detention Order, COFEPOSA, Non-Supply of Documents, Judicial Discipline, Effective Representation.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Shabna Abdulla v. The Union of India & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 3082 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date:
20 August 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

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

vi) Author:
Justice B.R. Gavai

vii) Citation:
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 460, 2024 INSC 612

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 3, COFEPOSA, 1974
• Article 22(5), Constitution of India
• Section 8(b), COFEPOSA

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None specified.

x) Case is Related to:
Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Criminal Law, Preventive Detention.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case emerged from the preventive detention of Abdul Raoof under COFEPOSA for alleged smuggling activities. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed a petition challenging the detention, despite similar orders being quashed for co-accused based on non-supply of documents critical to their defense. The Supreme Court was tasked with assessing whether the High Court erred in diverging from its Coordinate Bench’s decision and whether the detention complied with procedural fairness under Article 22(5).

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Smuggling Allegation: In April 2021, unaccompanied baggage from Dubai, containing over 14 kilograms of contraband gold, was intercepted in Kerala.
2. Role of the Detenue: Statements indicated that Abdul Raoof orchestrated smuggling operations from Dubai using cargo shipments.
3. Detention Order: Issued in August 2021, the detention order was confirmed in May 2022 after referral to the Advisory Board.
4. Requests for Documents: The detenue repeatedly sought documents, including electronic evidence of WhatsApp chats relied upon in the detention order, which were denied or left unresolved.
5. High Court Rulings: A Coordinate Bench quashed detention orders for co-accused on similar grounds, but another Division Bench upheld Abdul Raoof’s detention.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Non-Supply of Documents: Whether the denial of documents critical to the detenue’s defense violated Article 22(5).
2. Judicial Discipline: Whether the High Court’s dismissal conflicted with precedent set by its Coordinate Bench.
3. Procedural Fairness: Whether procedural irregularities rendered the detention order invalid.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellant argued that non-supply of electronic evidence, particularly WhatsApp chats, infringed Article 22(5), as it deprived the detenue of the right to an effective defense.
2. The Coordinate Bench had already held similar non-supply of evidence vitiated detention orders for co-accused, making the dismissal inconsistent.
3. The petitioner emphasized that subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on fair disclosure of evidence.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The government maintained that the detaining authority had independently assessed the evidence, and the denial of certain documents did not affect the detention’s legality.
2. It distinguished the Coordinate Bench’s decision, arguing that additional materials justified the detention in this specific case.
3. The respondents emphasized the importance of COFEPOSA in preventing smuggling and preserving economic interests.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court held that procedural fairness is paramount in preventive detention. Denying documents central to the grounds of detention violates Article 22(5). Additionally, judicial discipline mandates consistency in decisions by Coordinate Benches when circumstances are identical.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court underscored that divergence from precedent without referral to a larger bench undermines judicial credibility and the rule of law.

c. GUIDELINES

1. Authorities must furnish all evidence relied upon in detention orders.
2. Coordinate Benches must adhere to precedent or escalate inconsistencies to larger benches.
3. Article 22(5) must be upheld in letter and spirit to ensure fairness in preventive detention cases.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the fundamental rights of detainees under preventive detention laws. It reiterates the judiciary’s role as a guardian of procedural fairness and judicial discipline. This decision strengthens safeguards against arbitrary state action under COFEPOSA.

J) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred:

1. Nushath Koyamu v. Union of India and Others, [2022 (3) KLT 885]
2. Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others, [2008] 15 SCR 331
3. Atma Ram Vaidya v. State of Bombay, [AIR 1951 SC 157]

Important Statutes Referred:

1. Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
2. Constitution of India, Article 22(5)