Detention order quashed due to illegible documents, COFEPOSA Act section 5A inapplicable.

The court quashed the detention order against the detenu, ruling that the supply of illegible Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) invalidated the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, rendering the order void. Section 5A of the COFEPOSA Act was deemed inapplicable due to the vitiated subjective satisfaction. The detenu's situation was compared to the Zakir Khan case, leading to a decision in favor of the detenu based on the ground of parity. Consequently, the detenu was to be released unless needed for another case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the supply of illegible Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, thereby rendering the detention order invalid.
2. Whether Section 5A of the COFEPOSA Act can save the detention order from invalidation if the first issue is answered affirmatively.
3. Whether the present detenu is similarly placed as the detenus in the Zakir Khan case, thereby attracting the ground of parity.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the supply of illegible RUDs vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, thereby rendering the detention order invalid.

The court observed that the detenu was supplied with illegible RUDs, which were also relied upon by the detaining authority. This non-supply of legible copies of vital documents infringed upon the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation, as guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, and 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The court referenced several precedents, including *Mohd. Nashruddin v. Union of India* and *Dharmistha Bhagat v. State of Karnataka*, to emphasize that the non-supply of legible documents renders the detention order illegal and vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The court concluded that the illegibility of the RUDs amounted to non-placement of vital facts before the detaining authority, thereby vitiating its subjective satisfaction due to non-application of mind.

Issue 2: Whether Section 5A of the COFEPOSA Act can save the detention order from invalidation if the first issue is answered affirmatively.

The court held that Section 5A of the COFEPOSA Act, which allows for the severability of grounds in a detention order, does not apply in cases where the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated due to non-application of mind. Since the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was based on illegible RUDs, the protection afforded by Section 5A was neither attracted nor available. The court emphasized that the decision-making process of the detaining authority must involve a careful perusal of all relevant documents, which was not possible in this case due to the illegibility of the RUDs.

Issue 3: Whether the present detenu is similarly placed as the detenus in the Zakir Khan case, thereby attracting the ground of parity.

The court noted that the present case arose from the same investigation as the Zakir Khan case, and the RUDs supplied to the detenu were the same as those supplied in the Zakir Khan case. The detenu was implicated due to his alleged involvement in the same smuggling activities as Zakir Khan and Sanjeev Kumar Yadav. Given that the court had previously quashed the detention orders in the Zakir Khan case due to the illegibility of the RUDs, the present detenu was similarly placed and deserved the same relief on the ground of parity.

Conclusion:

The court quashed the detention order dated 28.12.2021 against the detenu, holding that the supply of illegible RUDs vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, rendering the detention order invalid. The court also held that Section 5A of the COFEPOSA Act could not save the detention order in this case and that the detenu was similarly placed as the detenus in the Zakir Khan case, thereby attracting the ground of parity. The detenu was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

---