Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
ARUN KUMAR
PRITAM SINGH THROUGH PREM KUMAR (BROTHER) – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the detention of the petitioner in pursuance of an order dated 2nd February 1994 No. F. N0. 673/l ()/94- Cus. VIII, passed by Shri Mahendra Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi under section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the COFEPOSA Act ).
( 2 ) THE facts leading to the passing of the impugned detention order against the petitioner are : the petitioner was intercepted at the Indira Gandhi International Airport on 12. 12. 1993 with foreign currency 127500 which was worth Rs. 39. 33 lacs at the relevant time. The said currency was concealed in a false cavity in the petitioner s brief case. He was asked to open his brief case. He opened it through a digital code number. Only a few personal clothes and magazines were found. But the officers had suspicion and on close scrutiny it was found that the br
Preventive detention – Detenu has right to be furnished with grounds of detention along with documents so referred to or relied on – Failure or even delay in furnishing those documents would amount t....
Action under Section 7 of COFEPOSA Act is not mandatory, failure to take action under section gives scope for doubt regarding assertion that detenu had absconded or concealed himself to avoid arrest.
Preventive detention orders must be executed promptly and in accordance with procedural requirements; unreasonable delays in execution can invalidate such orders.
Preventive detention orders must strictly comply with procedural safeguards, including timely communication of grounds and consideration of representations; non-compliance renders detention invalid.
The court reaffirmed that unexplained delays in preventive detention orders can sever the essential link between the alleged activities and the need for detention.
Point of Law : Nature and extent of right to representation under Article 22(5) of Constitution of India has been a subject for serious deliberation for long.
The non-supply of documents along with the detention order violates the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, and no proceedings c....
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....
Unexplained delays in executing detention orders undermine their validity, establishing the need for a timely link between grounds for detention and execution.
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
Listen Article