Back
M. M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR
Sarfaraz Alam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.M. Sundresh, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents. We have perused the pleadings, documents and judgments. The present appeal is at the behest of the brother-in-law of the detenue, who is challenging the validity of the detention order and aggrieved at the refusal of the High Court of Calcutta to set aside the order of detention passed by the respondents.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. On receiving information pertaining to a consignment containing gold and foreign currencies, escaping the watchful eyes of the customs department, four persons were apprehended. On eliciting further information from them, a search was conducted yielding huge quantity of gold, along with the recovery of foreign currencies of various denominations. As a consequence, the detenue was arrested, followed by a detention order passed by the detaining authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “COFEPOSA Act”). Prior to the said order he obtained an order of bail.
4.
(1) Preventive detention – There is subtle difference between background facts leading to detention order and grounds of detention – Effective knowledge qua a detenu is of utmost importance.(2) In a ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the detenue, being illiterate, must have the grounds of detention explained to him in a language he understands, as mandated by Article 22(5) ....
Detention orders under preventive laws must communicate grounds in a language understood by the detainee; failure to do so violates constitutional rights under Article 22(5).
A detenu has a fundamental right under Article 22(5) that grounds on which a detention order has been made against him, be communicated to him as soon as may be and that he be afforded an opportunity....
Preventive detention procedures require the timely consideration of any representation made by the detained individual, along with the supply of relevant grounds for effective legal recourse.
The grounds for preventive detention must be communicated in a language the detenu understands to ensure the right to make effective representation, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The failure to provide detention materials in the language known to the detenue violates constitutional rights, rendering the detention order illegal.
Preventive detention orders are invalidated if the grounds for detention are communicated in illegible or untranslated documents, infringing the detenu's constitutional rights to make effective repre....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
