In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has set aside a detention order that was confirmed nearly three decades later, emphasizing the unexplained and inordinate delay in executing the order. The case involved a 62-year-old man, Abdul Rasheed, from Kerala, who was placed under preventive detention by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Abdul Rasheed's ordeal began in 1992 when he was arrested at Mumbai airport while attempting to depart for Dubai with a substantial amount of concealed foreign currency. The ED, acting as the detaining authority, alleged that Abdul was involved in the unauthorized acquisition and secret transfer of foreign exchange out of India, violating the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA).
Subsequently, in 1993, a detention order was issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA Act). Astonishingly, this order was confirmed after nearly three decades, in 2023, when Abdul was already placed under preventive detention in February of that year.
Abdul Rasheed challenged the detention order in the Bombay High Court, arguing that the ED had not made any effort to provide him with a copy of the order and that he had never absconded in the case. He pointed out that both he and the ED had been present at Central Advisory Board hearings since 1993, indicating that the authorities were aware of his whereabouts.
In response, the ED claimed to have made efforts since 1993 to serve the detention order on Abdul at his last known address. They argued that the order had also been published in the official gazette of India in March 1994, which they considered sufficient compliance.
The Bombay High Court, in its ruling, found the unexplained and lengthy delay of nearly 30 years in executing the detention order to be unjustifiable. The court noted that there was no evidence of Abdul's involvement in prejudicial or objectionable activities during this time.
"It is not even the case of the authorities that in the last thirty years, the petitioner was engaged in any prejudicial activity or has indulged in any objectionable activity. We find substance in the ground of challenge that the detaining authority has not meticulously followed the procedure to serve the detention order, making it invalid due to the passage of time," the court held.
Consequently, the court quashed the detention order. However, at the request of the central government, the order was stayed for two weeks to allow the agency to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
