The Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the decision of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court whereby the DB had dismissed the appellant’s petition praying for release of detenue who was detained under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA).
Brief Facts:
The detenue's unaccompanied baggage was checked, and inside the compressor of a refrigerator, contraband gold weighing 14,763.30 grams valued at ₹7.16 crore was found and seized. The detenue was a resident of Dubai. He was running a cargo handling and forwarding business and scouting passengers who had unaccompanied cargo to be sent to India.
Detention orders under Section 3 of COFEPOSA were issued against three co-accused persons: the detenue, his father-in-law, and his brother-in-law. They filed writ petitions before the Kerala High Court challenging their detention.
Detenues also wrote letters to the Director General (DG), Central Economic Intelligence Bureau and Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA, seeking various documents that had not been provided to them, including audio recordings of the voice messages from WhatsApp conversations, which were relied upon by the Detaining Authority. The Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) rejected the request of the detenues, and the CEIB confirmed the detention for a period of one year.
However, the High Court DB held that the documents sought ought to have been furnished to the detenues and the non-supply had affected their right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Hence, the HC ruled that the detention orders were bad.
A few days later, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition seeking release of the detenues. This Writ Petition was heard by another Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, which dismissed it. Hence, the present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations:
The bench observed that, “When the Coordinate Bench of the same High Court based on same grounds of detention and on the basis of the same material, which was relied on by the detaining authority, had come to a considered conclusion that non-supply of certain documents had vitiated the right to make an effective representation of the detenus, another Coordinate Bench could not have ignored the same.”
The bench further stated that, “We are of the considered opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order should have followed the view taken by another Division Bench of the same High Court specifically when the grounds of detention and the grounds of challenge were identical in both the cases. In the event, the Division Bench of the High Court was of the view that the earlier decision of the Coordinate Bench of the same High Court was not correct in law, the only option available to it was to refer the matter to a larger Bench.”
Decision:
Hence, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and quashed the detention orders passed by the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau and COFEPOSA.
Case Title: Shabna Abdulla Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation No.: 2024 Latest Caselaw 517 SC
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Aanchal Tikmani
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria
Read More @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
