The Hindu : National : Preventive detention can’t be quashed for non-supply of papers

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Nov 16, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

National

National

Preventive detention can’t be quashed for non-supply of papers

J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI: Non-supply of relevant documents to a detenu cannot be the sole ground for quashing preventive detention, the Supreme Court has held.

There is no legal requirement that a copy of every document mentioned in the preventive detention order be invariably supplied to the detenu. Only those documents relied on by the detaining authority for concluding that preventive detention is necessary shall be supplied to him, said a Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam and Aftab Alam.

Writing the judgment, Justice Pasayat said: “The court has a duty to see whether non-supply of any document is in any way prejudicial to the detenu. While examining whether non-supply of a document would prejudice a detenu the court has to examine whether the detenu would be deprived of making an effective representation in the absence of the document.”

The Bench said: “Primarily, the copies which form the ground for detention are to be supplied and non-supply thereof would cause prejudice to the detenu. But documents which are merely referred to for the purpose of narration of facts in that sense cannot be termed documents without the supply of which the detenu will be prejudiced.”

In the instant case, the Tamil Nadu government passed a preventive detention order, dated August 11, 1999, against Abdullah Kadher Batcha under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act.

He challenged the order before it was executed and made a representation seeking some documents. The Madras High Court held that in the absence of the required documents the detention was rendered illegal and accordingly his habeas corpus petition was allowed. Allowing the State’s appeal against this judgment, the apex court pointed out that the documents sought by the detenu had nothing to do with the order of detention. Further, the documents were read over and an endorsement to that effect was made by the detenu himself.

High Court lost sight of factors

“The High Court has lost sight of the relevant factors and, therefore, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable and is therefore set aside. Considering the nature of the order of detention which is essentially preventive in character, it would be appropriate for the State government and the detaining authority to consider within two months whether there is any need to take the detenu back into detention for serving the period of detention indicated in the order of detention.”

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National