Grounds for preventive detention in Chinese: Supreme Court sets aside COFEPOSA order

The Supreme Court on Monday set aside a preventive detention order in which the grounds for detaining a person were ineligible and in Chinese. (Pramod Singla v. Union of India and ors).A Bench of Justices Krishna Murari and V Ramasubramanian emphasised that every procedural irregularity must work in favour of the detenue in such cases. "In cases where illegible documents have been supplied to the detenue, a grave prejudice is caused to the detenue in availing his right to send a representation to the relevant authorities, because the detenue, while submitting his representation, does not have clarity on the grounds of his or her detention. In such a circumstance, the relief under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the relevant statutory provisions allowing for submitting a representation are vitiated, since no man can defend himself against an unknown threat," the Court stated..The Court also extolled the necessity of ensuring procedural rigidity in the issuance of preventive detention orders."... preventive detention laws in India are a colonial legacy, and have a great potential to be abused and misused...The Courts, in circumstances of preventive detention, are conferred with the duty that has been given the utmost importance by the Constitution, which is the protection of individual and civil liberties. This act of protecting civil liberties, is not just the saving of rights of individuals in person and the society at large, but is also an act of preserving our Constitutional ethos, which is a product of a series of struggles against the arbitrary power of the British state.".The verdict came in an appeal against a Delhi High Court order passed in November last year refusing to quash the detention order against the appellant.The allegation against the appellant was that he was involved in a syndicate of Chinese, Taiwanese and South Korean nationals, in association with some Indian nationals, who smuggled gold into India through air cargo by concealing gold in machines.The appellant had sought quashing on the ground that the authorities delayed considering his representation for more than 60 days.In January this year, the top court had released the man from custody, initially as an interim relief due to the demise of his father, and then finally due to expiry of the detention order..The Bench at the outset noted that the order issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSAI) Act could not be quashed on account of delay as the authorities had worked as per the procedure established by law."The Government in the present case at hand, did decide to wait for the decision of the Advisory Board. This was also done in accordance with the decision of the Abdullah Kunhi case (supra), since the Government, being a separate authority, is bound to wait for the decision of the Advisory Board."However, the Court noted that the principle of parity applied, as other accused had been released from detention on the ground that the case-related documents supplied to them were in Chinese..Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhri appeared for the appellant. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj appeared for the respondents..[Read judgment]