Court upholds detention order under COFEPOSA, rules successive representations must introduce new grounds for consideration.

The Court dismissed the appeal challenging a detention order issued under COFEPOSA, affirming the rejection of the detenu's representations by the detaining authority and the Central Government. It held that successive representations must present new grounds or fresh material to be considered separately. As the second representation did not introduce new elements, the Central Government's consideration of all relevant materials in rejecting the first representation was deemed sufficient. The Court found no constitutional obligation for the Advisory Board and Central Government to consider successive representations unless they contain new grounds or fresh material.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order under COFEPOSA.
2. Consideration of multiple representations by the detenu.
3. Obligation of Advisory Board and Central Government to forward and consider representations.
4. Constitutional rights of the detenu regarding representations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Detention Order under COFEPOSA:
The appeal challenged the detention order dated 20th February 2002, issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA, and served on the detenu on 26th February 2002. The grounds of detention were also served on the same date. The detenu's representation dated 12th April 2002 was rejected by the detaining authority on 6th May 2002 and by the Central Government on 8th May 2002 after careful consideration.

2. Consideration of Multiple Representations by the Detenu:
The detenu made a second representation on 19th April 2002, which was not separately considered by the Central Government. The appellant argued that this second representation raised new grounds and should have been forwarded to all competent authorities. The Central Government contended that the second representation was part of the materials considered when rejecting the first representation on 8th May 2002.

3. Obligation of Advisory Board and Central Government to Forward and Consider Representations:
The appellant relied on precedents to argue that the Advisory Board must forward representations to appropriate authorities if requested by the detenu. The Central Government maintained that it had considered all relevant materials, including the second representation, when rejecting the first representation. The Court held that the Advisory Board and the Central Government are not constitutionally obligated to consider successive representations unless they present new grounds or fresh material.

4. Constitutional Rights of the Detenu Regarding Representations:
The appellant cited several cases to assert that a detenu has a constitutional right to make multiple representations, which must be considered and disposed of by the detaining authority and the Central Government. However, the Court distinguished these cases, noting that the right to make successive representations is conditional on presenting new grounds or fresh material. The Court found no new grounds or fresh material in the second representation, which reiterated the same points as the first representation.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the Central Government was not obligated to consider the second representation separately, as it did not contain any new grounds or fresh material. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the validity of the detention order and the procedures followed by the detaining authority and the Central Government.

---