Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh against a High Court order quashing a preventive detention order. The respondent was detained on July 31, 1989 under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. The respondent challenged the detention before the High Court, which by order dated July 25, 1990 in W.P. No.2029 of 1990 set aside the detention order on two grounds. First, the High Court found that there was an unexplained delay of one month in considering the detenu's representation, from February 20, 1990 to March 15, 1990. Second, the High Court held that the non-supply of a copy of the report of the sponsoring authority to the detenu violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court, and leave was granted after notice. The respondent, though served, did not appear in person or through counsel. The core legal issues were whether the non-supply of the sponsoring authority's report was mandatory under Article 22(5) and whether the delay in disposing of the representation was fatal to the detention order. The State argued that the report of the sponsoring authority was not material that had to be supplied to the detenu; it was only material furnished to the detaining authority. The State further contended that all material on which reliance was placed for the order of detention had been supplied, and the delay of about 23 days was not fatal in the facts and circumstances. The respondent, absent, did not present counter-arguments, but the High Court's reasoning was treated as the respondent's position. The Supreme Court, after analyzing the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, held that it was not mandatory to supply the report of the sponsoring authority to the detenu. The report was only material furnished to the detaining authority. Crucially, all the material on which reliance was placed for the order of detention had admittedly been supplied to the detenu. Therefore, the non-supply of the sponsoring authority's report did not violate Article 22(5). On the question of delay, the Court observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of about 23 days in disposal of the representation was not fatal. Consequently, the Court concluded that the order of the High Court setting aside the detention order was clearly illegal. However, since the period of detention had already expired, the Court did not think it was a case warranting further detention of the respondent. The appeal was accordingly disposed of. The Court's decision clarified the limited scope of the detenu's right to be supplied with documents under Article 22(5) and reiterated that not every delay in considering a representation automatically vitiates a detention order.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Supply of Sponsoring Authority's Report - Article 22(5), Constitution of India - It is not mandatory to supply the report of the sponsoring authority to the detenu; it is only material furnished to the detaining authority; all material relied upon for the order of detention was admittedly supplied to the detenu, hence no violation of Article 22(5) - Held that the High Court was not right in setting aside the detention order on this ground (Para 1). B) Preventive Detention - Delay in Considering Representation - Article 22(5), Constitution of India - Delay of about 23 days in disposal of the representation from February 20, 1990 to March 15, 1990 was not fatal in the facts and circumstances of the case - Held that the High Court's finding that unexplained delay vitiated the detention order was incorrect (Para 1). C) Preventive Detention - Lapse of Detention Period - Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, Section 3(1)(iii) - Although the High Court's order setting aside the detention order was clearly illegal, since the detention period had already expired, no further detention of the respondent was warranted - Appeal disposed of accordingly (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-supply of the sponsoring authority's report to the detenu violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution; whether an unexplained delay of about one month in considering the detenu's representation was fatal to the detention order
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not right in setting aside the detention order. Non-supply of the sponsoring authority's report was not mandatory under Article 22(5); it was only material furnished to the detaining authority, and all material relied upon was admittedly supplied. The delay of about 23 days in disposal of the representation was also not fatal. However, since the period of detention had already expired, no further detention of the respondent was warranted, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- The report of the sponsoring authority is not required to be supplied to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution
- only material relied upon for detention must be supplied
- delay in disposal of representation is not fatal if not inordinate and no prejudice shown
- High Court erred in setting aside detention order on these grounds
