Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – Constitution of India – Article 22(5) – Detention order – Validity – Detenue’s right of making a representation – Communication thereof if to be made both orally and in writing – Appellant inter alia pleaded that the detenue was not informed/communicated regarding his right to make a representation against the detention order: Held: The first part of Article 22(5) involves the bounden duty and obligation on the part of the authorities in not only serving the grounds of detention as soon as the case may be, after due service of the detention order and communication of the grounds of detention along with the documents relied upon in the language which he understands, but also for the purpose of affording him the earliest opportunity of making a representation questioning the detention order – The second part is with respect to his right of making the representation – For exercising such a right, a detenue has to necessarily have adequate knowledge of the very basis of detention order – A detenue has to be informed that he has a right to make a representation – Such a communication of his right can either be oral or in writing – In a case where a detenue is not in a position to understand the language, a mere verbal explanation would not suffice – However, in a case where a detenue receives the ground of detention in the language known to him which contains a clear statement over his right to make a representation, there is no need for informing verbally once again – Such an exercise, however, would be required when the grounds of detention do not indicate so – In the present case, the grounds of detention forming the basis of the satisfaction of the detaining authority were made known to the detenue and were attempted to be served at the earliest point of time i.e., on the very next day after his detention – No error in the procedure adopted by the respondents as due compliance was made to translate all documents in Bengali apart from persuading the detenue to receive them – In addition, the panchnama was signed by the independent witnesses – The detenue also read the grounds of detention and the relevant documents and therefore was well aware of his right to make a representation – The detenue is not entitled to any relief as he not only suppressed the facts as proved in his refusal to receive the grounds of detention, apart from reading them in detail, but also approached the Court with unclean hands – It is a deliberate ploy adopted by the detenue to secure favourable orders from the Court – A perusal of the panchnama clearly indicates the adequacy of his knowledge in English, as he has not only signed the document in English but also made his objection with respect to receipt of the grounds of detention – No ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. [Paras 10-12, 14, 16 and 19]
Constitution of India – Article 22(5) – Duty and obligation on the part of the authorities – Right of the detenue of making the representation – Difference between the background facts leading to detention order and the grounds of detention – Discussed.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.