MISUSE OF PREVENTIVE DETENTION UNDER THE COFEPOSA ACT

Case Name: Anirudh Prataprai Nansi v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 2429 of 2023

Date of Judgment: 20 May 2024

Quorum: Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan

 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) resulted in the detainment of the applicant Anirudh Prataprai Nansi. The detention of the petitioner was based on suspected efforts to smuggle foreign-produced gold which had a valuation exceeding ₹1.04 crores. The gold was recovered from another individual, one Zaheer Ahmed, who allegedly named the petitioner as the intended recipient.

 

The detention order arrived after months of seizure with the detention grounds presented to the petitioner five months after the initial process. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order by claiming the government violated constitutional protections found in Article 21 and Article 22 which guaranteed the specific right to receive detention grounds and present effective representation before authorities.

 

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

1. Whether the delay in serving the grounds of detention vitiated the detention order?
2. Whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was genuinely formed and valid under COFEPOSA?
3. Whether reliance on unverified statements of a co-accused, without corroborative evidence, could justify preventive detention?

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

• The Indian Constitution contains Articles 21 and 22(5) which establish fundamental rights for citizens.
• The 1974 Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act defines its first section as 3(1).

 

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

The petitioner contended that:

• The delay of over five months in serving the grounds of detention nullified the purpose of preventive detention.
• The detaining authority did not form an independent or timely opinion based on relevant material.
• The detention was based solely on the statement of a co-accused without independent verification, violating principles of natural justice.
• His constitutional right to make a representation under Article 22(5) was rendered illusory by the delay and vague grounds.

 

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS

The Union of India argued that:

• The preventive detention was necessary to prevent the petitioner from engaging in smuggling activities.
• The delay in execution and communication of the grounds was due to administrative and procedural formalities.
• The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was formed based on sufficient material, including statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

 

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court held that the delay in communicating the grounds of detention struck at the root of procedural fairness under Article 22(5). Citing precedent, the Court emphasized that the right to be informed of the grounds “as soon as may be” was a constitutional guarantee and not a procedural formality.

 

The Court found that:

• The unexplained and excessive delay in the communication of grounds was unjustified.
• The detaining authority failed to demonstrate that the delay was due to unavoidable or bona fide reasons.
• The reliance solely on uncorroborated statements without material evidence undermined the legitimacy of preventive detention.
• The cumulative effect of procedural irregularities and constitutional violations rendered the detention illegal.

 

JUDGMENT 

The Supreme Court approved the request. The detention order from 3 July 2023 received an order to be canceled. The court gave directions for the petitioner to obtain release immediately unless there existed another case that required their detention.

 

CONCLUSION 

This legal decision establishes clear boundaries for detention without trial through its emphasis on basic human rights under Articles 21 and 22. The judgment strongly supports the implementation of proper legal steps in detention because it prevents security measures from being used improperly. The court’s decision establishes a fundamental control mechanism that scrutinizes executive authority because any violation of procedural rules in preventive detention laws such as COFEPOSA can render an order invalid.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY HARINI S