1980 (2) TMI 256 - SC - FEMA

Court rules delay in providing detenu's documents violates right to representation

RAMCHANDRA A. KAMAT Versus UOI.

The Court held that the detaining authority's failure to promptly provide necessary statements and documents to the detenu for a detention order violated ... Writ of Habeas Corpus for release of detentu Held that:- Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and explanation furnished by the detaining authority, we are of the view that the detaining authority failed to act with reasonable expedition in furnishing the statements and documents referred to in the grounds of detention. On the facts of the case, therefore, we are satisfied that the detention is not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law. The continued detention is not warranted. The order of his release has already been issued by this Court. Issues:- Delay in furnishing statements and documents for detention order- Right to make representation and its expeditious considerationDelay in furnishing statements and documents for detention order:The petitioner filed a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus to challenge his detention order dated 31-8-1979 under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The petitioner, upon being arrested on 5-9-1979, was served with the grounds of detention on the same day. However, the detenu's advocate highlighted that the detenu was not provided with copies of the statements and documents referred to in the grounds, essential for making an effective representation. Despite requests and reminders from the advocate, the necessary documents were not promptly furnished, leading to delays in the detenu's ability to make a representation. The detaining authority's explanation for the delay was deemed unsatisfactory as the detaining authority failed to act with reasonable expedition in providing the required documents. The Court emphasized that undue delay in furnishing the necessary documents for detention undermines the detenu's right to make an effective representation, rendering the detention not in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure.Right to make representation and its expeditious consideration:The Court reiterated that the detenu has a fundamental right to make a representation against the detention order, and this representation must be considered expeditiously by the appropriate authority. Referring to the Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal case, the Court emphasized the importance of immediate consideration of the detenu's representation, especially when personal liberty is at stake. The detenu is entitled to obtain information related to the grounds of detention, including copies of statements and documents referred to in the grounds, to enable an effective representation. The detaining authority is obligated to provide these documents promptly upon request by the detenu. Failure to do so not only infringes upon the detenu's rights but also renders the detention not in accordance with the law. In this case, the detaining authority's lack of prompt action in furnishing the necessary documents for detention order led to a finding that the detention was not warranted, and the detenu was ordered to be released.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of promptly furnishing statements and documents to the detenu for a detention order and stressed the detenu's right to make an effective representation with expeditious consideration by the appropriate authority. The Court's decision to allow the petition was based on the detaining authority's failure to act with reasonable expedition in providing the necessary documents, thereby rendering the detention not in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure.