Case Title: Sarfaraz Alam v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: SLP(Crl) No. 13193 of 2023
Decided on: 4th January, 2024
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIIND KUMAR
Facts of the Case
In the current case, the individual in question was apprehended based on information about a shipment containing gold and foreign currencies. Despite being initially arrested and securing bail, a detention order was later issued under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
Following the issuance of the order, the individual was detained. When he refused to acknowledge the grounds of detention, a detailed record (panchnama) was created in the presence of two impartial witnesses. Interestingly, the detenu signed the document in English with the statement “I have refused to receive any document.”
The court inferred from this that the detenu’s claim of ignorance of English appeared to be an afterthought. It also noted that an attempt to provide him with a translated version of the grounds was made on the very next day of his detention. Due to these observations, the Bench denied the requested relief, emphasizing that the individual had approached the court with unclean hands and had withheld essential facts.
Issue
The central issue in this case revolves around whether the detenu/appellant was effectively informed by the authorities, in a language he comprehended, regarding the grounds of detention and his right to make a representation, leading to the challenge of the detention order.
Legal Provision
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India states that when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.
Court’s analysis and decision
In the course of rejecting a challenge to detention on the basis of the detenu/appellant not being informed of his rights by the authorities, the Supreme Court declared that if a detenu receives the grounds of detention in a language he understands, containing a clear statement about his right to make a representation, there is no necessity for additional verbal communication.
Discussing Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, a Division Bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar emphasized that it is imperative to inform a detenu of the grounds of detention (along with relevant documents) promptly and in a language he comprehends. Additionally, the detenu must be made aware of his right to challenge the detention order by making a representation.
The Bench concluded that the grounds of detention, forming the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, were effectively communicated to the detenu. The document contained “adequate averments” indicating the right to make a representation to the specified authorities. As the detenu had read the grounds and relevant documents, the Bench asserted that he was well-informed about his right to submit a representation.
“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 fall into a 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- Afshan Ahmad
