IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Siddharth Mridul, Anup Jairam Bhambhani, JJ.
Jasvinder Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(Crl.) 1388 of 2021 & Crl. M.A. No. 11699 of 2021
Decided On : 18-02-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and basis for detention (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. grounds of challenge to the detention order (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments related to communication of detention order (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. judicial precedents supporting the need for effective communication (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. legal conclusions about the requirement of communication in a language understood by the detenu (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. conclusion on quashing of the detention order (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. disposition of the judgment and communications directives (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J. The petitioner Jasvinder Kaur has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking a direction in the nature of habeas corpus for the production of her son, Harmeet Singh, who the petitioner alleges, has been illegally detained by the respondents. After amendment of the array of party-respondents, the respondents in the proceedings are the Union of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Central Economic Intelligence Bureau); Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA); and The Commissioner of Customs, Terminal-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi, which parties are hereinafter collectively referred to as the `Ministry' or the `respondents'.
2. The petitioner further seeks quashing of detention order bearing No. PD-12002/05/2020-COFEPOSA dated 05.06.2020 issued under section 3(1) of the CONSERVATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING ACTIVITIES ACT , 1974 (COFEPOSA Act) by the Joint Secretary COFEPOSA (the "impugned detention order") under which the petitioner's son is in preventive detention with The Superintendent, Tihar Jail, New Delhi, which detention order also stands confirmed by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance vidi order dated 11.08.2021.
3. As per the record, the Ministry's case against the petitioner's son is this :
(i) A specific intelligence input is stated to have been received on 01/02.02.2019 by the Assistant Commissioner, Green Channel (Shift-D) at the Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGI Airport) about smuggling of drones, goods, cigarettes and certain other items in commercial quantity by six passengers on different flights. Pursuant to this intelligence input, customs officers along with officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) approached Exit Gate No. 5 of the Arrival Hall, IGI Airport to intercept eight passengers, including the petitioner herself; and upon conducting search of their baggage, certain objectionable goods were found in the baggage of two persons, Gagan Jot Singh and Gurpreet Singh.
(ii) Subsequently, on information allegedly given by Gagan Jot Singh, on the intervening night of 01.02.2019 and 02.02.2019, at around 1:30 a.m. the petitioner's son, Harmeet Singh who arrived at IGI Airport from Dubai via Kuwait Airways-Flight No. KU381 was also apprehended for carrying contraband items and goods, along with three other persons, by name Sumit Verma, Sourabh Chopra and Amarjeet Singh.
(iii) Notice under section 102 of the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962 ( CUSTOMS ACT ) was served upon Harmeet Singh on 02.02.2019; officers of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance recorded his statement under section 108 of the CUSTOMS ACT , which is stated to have been self-incriminating in nature. Importantly, it is the case of the respondents that the statement of Harmeet Singh was typed in the English language and was stated to have been explained to him in the vernacular by an interpreter.
(iv) As per the impugned detention order, upon search of Harmeet Singh's bags the following items were found :
i. 238 dandas of Benson & Hedges Cigarettes;
ii. Boarding Pass dated 01.02.2019 for Flight No. KU381 (Kuwait to Delhi) with seat No. 2H;
iii. Indian Passport No. Z5317414 issued on 16.01.2019;
iv. One Vivo Y53 mobile with Vodafone Sim No. 8860253525;
v. UAE Dirham 30
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.
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....
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).
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) ....
(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 ....
Preventive detention requires a clear link between past conduct and future risk; failure to communicate grounds in an understandable language violates constitutional rights.
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....
The failure to provide detention materials in the language known to the detenue violates constitutional rights, rendering the detention order illegal.
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.