Home > Recent Judgements > Timely Decision On Representations Is Crucial In Cases Affecting Personal Liberty
Sept 23, 2024
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
In the case, Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors, The Appellant’s Husband was detained on August 31, 2023, under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) for his alleged involvement in hawala transactions and foreign currency dealings. On September 27, 2023, Appellant’s Husband submitted representations contesting his detention, but due to the jail authorities’ failure to properly forward the documents, they were not received by the relevant authorities. His detention was subsequently confirmed by the State Advisory Board and the Central Government on November 28, 2023.
Following the dismissal of her Habeas Corpus petition by the Kerala High Court on March 4, 2024, the Appellant took the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court uncovered considerable delays, including a 9-month gap in forwarding the original representation, along with further delays in processing email submissions. The Court criticized the careless handling of the case and pointed out that modern technology should have been employed to prevent such delays. It concluded that this mismanagement violated the Appellant Husband’s right to a timely review of his detention under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution.
NON-SUPPLY OF MATERIALS
Furthermore, Appellant’s Counsel argued that Appellant’s husband right under Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution Act which ensures that the authorities provide the detainee with the necessary documents to challenge the detention and mandates an expeditious review of the detention order was violated because crucial documents, including statements from a key witness, were not provided to Appellant’s husband. Respondent’s Counsel countered that not all documents were necessary and that the detention could be upheld on other grounds.
The Court agreed that every document needs not to be shared, only the critical documents that justify the detention must be provided. It ruled that since the detention order relied on these crucial documents, their non-supply invalidated the detention.
DOCUMENTS REFERRED FOR CONTEXT
The Court ruled that if certain documents are only mentioned for background or context in a detention case, and they do not impact the detainee’s ability to defend themselves, these documents do not need to be given to the detainee. However, any crucial documents that are directly relied upon to justify the detention must be shared with the detainee. This ensures compliance with Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution, which protects the detainee’s right to challenge their detention.
Article 22(5) guarantees the right to a fair chance to contest the detention, and this can only happen if the detainee has access to all the key materials that were used in making the decision to detain them. The Court underscored that personal liberty (a fundamental right) cannot be restricted arbitrarily. Authorities must follow proper legal procedures, meaning all relevant information that contributed to the detention order, whether or not the detainee is already familiar with it, must be shared. This ensures transparency and fairness, allowing the detainee to make an informed and effective defence.
HELDING OF THE COURT
The Supreme Court of India stressed that authorities have a constitutional obligation to promptly consider representations against detention. It criticized the delays and negligent handling in the Appellant’s case, ensuring that her husband’s right to effectively challenge his detention under Article 22(5) was protected. As a result, the Supreme Court annulled the detention orders and ordered the release of the Appellant’s husband.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
