TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Detention Order Under COFEPOSA Ruled Illegal</h1> <h3>IBRAHIM AHMAD BATTI @ MOHD. AKHTAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT</h3> IBRAHIM AHMAD BATTI @ MOHD. AKHTAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - 1982 AIR 1500, 1983 (1) SCR 540, 1982 (3) SCC 440, 1982 (2) SCALE 888 Issues Involved:1. Legality of the detention order dated 1st July 1982 under COFEPOSA.2. Compliance with constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.3. Timely communication of grounds of detention and documents in a language understood by the detenu.4. Justification of delay in supplying Urdu translations of documents.5. Non-supply of Urdu translations of certain documents and statements.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Detention Order Dated 1st July 1982 Under COFEPOSA:The petitioner, Ibrahim Ahmad Batti, challenged the detention order dated 1st July 1982 issued under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA, seeking a writ of habeas corpus for his release. The detention was based on the seizure of contraband items and the recording of confessional statements. The grounds of detention and related documents were served in English and Urdu. The Advisory Board initially found sufficient cause for detention but later noted a violation of Article 22(5) due to the failure to supply Urdu translations, leading to the revocation of the initial detention order.2. Compliance with Constitutional Safeguards Under Article 22(5) of the Constitution:Article 22(5) mandates that the detaining authority must communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu and afford the earliest opportunity to make a representation. Section 3(3) of COFEPOSA stipulates that this communication should occur within five days, extendable to fifteen days in exceptional circumstances with reasons recorded in writing. The court emphasized that the grounds and all supporting materials must be communicated in a language understood by the detenu.3. Timely Communication of Grounds of Detention and Documents in a Language Understood by the Detenu:The detenu received the grounds of detention and documents in English and Hindi on 7th July 1982, but Urdu translations of the bulk of documents were only supplied on 15th July 1982, beyond the normal period of five days. The court reiterated that the grounds and all incorporated materials must be communicated in a language the detenu understands within the prescribed time frame to enable effective representation.4. Justification of Delay in Supplying Urdu Translations of Documents:The respondents attributed the delay to the Holy month of Ramzan, during which Urdu translators were available for limited hours. The court found this explanation insufficient, noting that the detaining authority could have prepared the translations before issuing the detention order. The court held that the delay was not justified by exceptional circumstances, constituting a breach of constitutional and legislative mandates.5. Non-supply of Urdu Translations of Certain Documents and Statements:Several documents and statements were not translated into Urdu and supplied to the detenu. The respondents argued that the detenu understood English figures and could converse in Hindi and Gujarati. The court rejected this explanation, emphasizing that the detenu's primary language was Urdu, and the failure to supply translations of material documents prejudiced his ability to make an effective representation. The court highlighted the importance of providing all relevant documents in a language understood by the detenu.Conclusion:The court concluded that the continued detention of the petitioner was illegal due to the breach of constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5) and Section 3(3) of COFEPOSA. The court quashed the detention order and directed the immediate release of the petitioner. The petition was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
