The Supreme Court of India, overturned the Kerala High Court's decision, which had dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging the preventive detention of Abdul Raoof under the COFEPOSA Act. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and consistency, particularly when previous benches of the same High Court had quashed similar detention orders due to non-supply of critical documents, such as WhatsApp chats, which are vital for the detainee's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

1. Introduction

The case revolves around the preventive detention of Abdul Raoof, detained under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), for allegedly being involved in smuggling activities. The detention was confirmed by the Central Government, despite the detainee's repeated requests for crucial documents, including WhatsApp chats, which were not provided.

2. High Court's Decision

The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the detainee's sister-in-law, Shabna Abdulla, upholding the detention order. The High Court's decision was based on the premise that the detaining authority had arrived at a subjective satisfaction, and the non-supply of WhatsApp chats would not vitiate the detention.

3. Supreme Court's Judgment

The Supreme Court, however, took a different view. It highlighted the inconsistency in the High Court's approach, noting that a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court had previously quashed similar detention orders in related cases due to the non-supply of WhatsApp chats. The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial discipline requires adherence to previous rulings unless there is a substantial difference in the facts of the case.

4. Importance of Judicial Discipline

The judgment underlined the critical role of judicial discipline and the need for consistency in judicial decisions. The Court observed that conflicting judgments from the same court undermine the credibility of the judiciary and cause confusion at the lower courts.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court quashed the detention order against Abdul Raoof, reaffirming the detainee's constitutional right to make an effective representation. This case serves as a reminder of the judiciary's duty to uphold constitutional principles and maintain consistency in its rulings.