SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
GAUTAM JAIN – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2281 OF 2014 WITH WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 203 OF 2015
Decided On : 04-01-2017
(1990) 2 SCC 629; (2000) 7 SCC 148 – Relied upon
(b) Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – Section 5 – Grounds – Means `materials' on which the order of detention is primarily based – "Grounds" must contain the pith and substance of primary facts but not subsidiary facts or evidential details – 'Basic facts' on which conclusions are founded would constitute a ground and particulars in support thereof or the details would be subsidiary facts or further particulars of the said basic facts will be integral part of the 'grounds' – Various circumstances given u/s 3(1) cannot be treated as 'grounds' – Different instances would be treated as different 'grounds' and the further particulars which are given in respect of those instances are the subsidiary details. (Para 16, 19)
(1975) 3 SCC 545; (1981) 2 SCC 175; (1981) 2 SCC 24 – Relied upon
(c) Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – Section 3(1) and 5A – High Court dissecting detention order and rightly concluding that detention is based on multiple grounds – Rightly applied principle of segregation contained in Section 5A. (Para 20, 23)
1985 (Supp.) SCC 144; (1981) 2 SCC 24; (1990) 1 SCC 81 – Relied upon
(d) Constitution of India – Article 22(5) and section 5A, Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – Section 5A already held intra vires Article 22(5) – Contention that once there is an infringement of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, provisions of Section 5A of the Act would be inapplicable rejected. (Para 24)
(1994) 5 SCC 54 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Detention order dated 23.09.2009 was passed by respondent No.2 against the appellant under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 whereby the appellant was directed to be detained.
Initially, this order was challenged by the appellant at pre-execution stage by filing writ petition in Supreme Court which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to avail his legal remedies.
Thereafter, the appellant appeared before the officials of Enforcement Directorate on 18.11.2013 when he was served with the order of detention. He was also detained and lodged in the Central Jail, Tihar in execution of the said order of detention.
On 21.11.2013 and 22.11.2013, the appellant was served with the Grounds of Detention as well as copies of certain relied upon documents with translation thereof. According to the appellant, complete set of documents, which were relied upon by the respondents, were not supplied. He made a representation on 03.12.2013 to the detaining authority requesting revocation of the detention order or in the alternative supply complete documents/information, which was followed by another representation dated 06.12.2013.
These representations were not considered.
Appellant filed the writ petition in the High Court which has been dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
High Court rightly applied the principle of segregation.
Result: Criminal appeal; and writ petition both dismissed.
JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
Detention order dated 23.09.2009 was passed by respondent No.2 against the appellant under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') whereby the appellant was directed to be detained. Initially, this order was challenged by the appellant at pre-execution stage by filing writ petition in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Said petition was entertained and initially execution of the Criminal Appeal No. 2281 of 2014 & Anr. Page 1 of 30 detention order was stayed. However, ultimately vide order dated 01.10.2013, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to avail his legal remedies. Thereafter, the appellant appeared before the officials of Enforcement Directorate on 18.11.2013 when he was served with the order of detention. He was also detained and lodged in the Central Jail, Tihar in execution of the said order of detention.
On 21.11.2013 and 22.11.2013, the appellant was served with the Grounds of Detention as well as copies of certain relied upon documents with translation thereof. According to the appellant, complete set of documents, which were relied upon by the respondents, were not supplied. He made a representation on 03.12.2013 to the detaining authority requesting revocation of the detention order or in the alternative supply complete documents/information, which was followed by another representation dated 06.12.2013. According to the appellant, these representations were not considered. He filed the writ petition in the High Court of Delhi inter alia for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus with a direction to the respondents to set the appellant to liberty forthwith and for quashing of the detention order dated 23.09.2009. This petition was contested by the respondents.
2. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition vide judgment dated 18.03.2014. It may be commented at this stage itself that though the High Court has accepted the plea of the appellant that there was failure on the part of the respondents to furnish certain documents qua one particular allegation in the detention order, it has still upheld the detention order invoking the principle of segregation of grounds enumerated in Section 5A of the Act. In nutshell, the High Court has come to the conclusion that there were various grounds which formed the basis of the detention order and even if the documents pertaining to one particular ground were not furnished, that ground could be ignored applying the principle of segregation and on remaining grounds the detention order was still sustainable.
3. In the instant appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court, the plea taken by the appellant is that the principle of sever ability of grounds, which is enshrined in Section 5A of the Act, is not applicable to the case at hand as the detention order was passed on one ground only, in support of which few instances were given in the Grounds for Detention annexed with the detention order which cannot be treated as different grounds. It is, thus, argued that those instances forming part of detention order were, in fact, only further particulars or subsidiary facts rather than basic facts which are integral part of, and constitute the grounds of the detention order. It is this aspect of the matter which needs examination in the present case.
4. With the aforesaid introductory note, we may now take stock of the order of detention as well as Grounds of Detention in support of the said order.
5. Detention order dated 23.09.2009 records that respondent No.2 is satisfied that the detention order needs to be passed with respect to the appellant with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange in future. Grounds of Detention, in support of the said order, run into 46 pages which enumerate various activities in wh
A. Sowkath Ali v. Union of India
Vashisht Narain Karwaria v. State of U.P.
Khudiram Das v. The State of West Bengal
Vakil Singh v. State of J. & K.
State of Gujarat v. Chamanlal Manjibhai Soni
Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.