Sarfaraz Alam vs. Union of India
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 15 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
Citation: 2024 INSC 18; [2024] 1 S.C.R. 267
Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Aravind Kumar
Background
The case involved a challenge to a preventive detention order issued under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) against the appellant’s brother-in-law, alleged to be involved in gold and foreign currency smuggling. The detaining authority acted after the seizure of a significant quantity of gold and foreign currencies. The appellant contended that the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5) were violated, specifically that the detenue was not properly informed of the grounds for detention or his right to make a representation against the order.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Article 22(5) Requirements:
The Court clarified that Article 22(5) of the Constitution imposes a dual obligation: authorities must (a) communicate the grounds of detention to the detenue in a language he understands and (b) inform him of his right to make a representation to the appropriate authorities. The distinction between background facts and the actual grounds of detention was emphasized—only the latter need to be supplied to the detenue.
Communication and Language:
The Court found that the authorities had taken adequate steps to serve the grounds of detention and relevant documents in Bengali, the detenue’s language. The panchnama (record of proceedings) showed that the detenue read and understood the documents, signed in English, and was aware of his rights. The Court noted that a mere verbal explanation is insufficient if the detenue cannot understand, but in this case, the requirements were met.
Refusal to Receive Documents:
The Court observed that the detenue’s refusal to accept the documents appeared to be a deliberate ploy to challenge the detention order. The panchnama and witness signatures confirmed that the grounds were made available and explained to him. The Court held that the detenue could not claim ignorance of his rights or the grounds for detention, especially since he had read and signed the relevant documents.
Access to Evidence:
The Court rejected the argument that all evidence, such as telephonic conversations, needed to be supplied, stating that only the grounds forming the basis of the detaining authority’s satisfaction were required.
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the detention order. It found that the procedural safeguards under Article 22(5) were satisfied, and there was no violation of the detenue’s rights. The Court refused to interfere with the Calcutta High Court’s decision.
Significance
This judgment reinforces the strict procedural requirements for preventive detention, clarifies the scope of Article 22(5), and underscores the importance of effective communication of detention grounds and rights to the detenue, while not permitting technicalities or deliberate non-compliance to defeat detention orders.
RELATED Blog
0 comments