RATTAN SINGH ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC. ETC

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 1010

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, A. VARADARAJAN, AMARENDRA NATH SEN

Case summary

As such, the question of any delay in the disposal of such a representation does not arise". Union of lndia( ) this Court held that when a properly addressed representation is made by the detenu to the Centr>1l Government for

Judgment text

OH) RATTAN SINGH ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC. ETC. October 22, 1981 [ Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C. J. , A. VARADARAJAN AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ. ] Conservation afForeign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974-Petitioner's representation to Central Government submitted through Jail - Superintendent not forwarded-Effect of-Scope of power of Central Government und. r section JI(I). ' The petitioner, who was detained under section 3(1l of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smugg1ing Activities Act, 1974 made (on April 19, 1981) through the Jail Superintendent representations simultaneously to the State Government as well as the Central Government against the order of his detention. In his petition under Article 32 of the Constitution he contended that the failure of,,the Central Government to consider his representation inspite of the long passage of time had rendered his detention illegal.

The Jail Superintendent in his affidavit stated that the representation was forwarded to the State Government. The State Government after considering his representation rejected it. Allowing the petitions HELD : The detention is illegal. [1012 F] (1 The petitioner~ had been unaccountably deprived of a valuable right to defend and assert his fundamental right to personal liberty. Laws of preventive detention afford only a modicum of safeguards to person detained under them and if freedom and liberty are to have any meaning in our democratic set up it is essential that at least those safeguards are not denied to the detenu. If the power 7 conferred on the Central Government by section 11(1) of the Act to revoke an order of detention even if it was made by 1he _State Government ·or its officers is to be real and effective, it must imply the right in a detenu to make a representation to the Central Government against the order of detention.

In the instant case (the failure on the part either of the Jail Superintendent or the State Government to forward the detenu's representation to the Central Government has deprived him of the valuable right to have his detention revoked by that Government. [1012 C·F] Tara Chand v. State ofRajasthan, [1980] 2 S. C. C. 321 and Shyam Amba/al Siroya v. Union of India, [1980] 2 S. C. C. 346, referred to. RATTAN SINGH v. PUNJAB (Chandrachud, C. J. ) IOI I ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 3614 & 3647 of 1981. Harjinder Singh for the Petitioner. N. S. Das Bahl and M. S. Dhillon for Respondent No. I. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C. J. : By this petition fonder Article 32 of the -- Constitution the petitioner challenges the validity of an order dated • March 27, 1981 passed by respondent l, the State of Punjab, under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. On April 19, !

981, while the petitioner was in detention, his advocate, Shri Harjinder Singh, wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Central Jail, Amritsar, enclosing therewith two representations drafted on behalf of the petitioner, one of which was addressed to the Joint Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Punjab, 11 1l Government for (I) [1980) 2 S. C. C. 321. (I) [1980J 2 S. C. C 346. RATTAN siNGH v. PUNJAB (Chandrachud, C. i. ) io13 revocation of the order of detention, a statutory duty is cast upon the Central Government under section 11, COFEPOSA to apply its mind and either revoke the order of detention or dismiss the petition and that a petition for revocation of an order of detention should be disposed of with reasonable expedition. Since the representation was left unattended for four months, the continued detention of the detenu was held illegal. In our case, the representation to the Central Government was not forwarded to it at all.

These then are our reasons for the order dated October I, 1981 • whereby we directed that the detenu be released, Writ Petition No. 3647 of 1981. For the reasons given above in Writ Petition No. 3614 of 1981, this Petition must also succeed and the detenu set at liberty as directed in our Order dated October I. It was on July 2, 1981 that the detenu macte a representation to the Central Government through the Superintendent of Jail, Amritsar, and it is not denied that the representation has still not been considered by that Government. .. The counter-affidavit of the Under Secretary to the Government of India shows that the representation made by the detenu was not forwarded at all to the Central Government which explains the statement in the affidavit that no representation was received by the Central Government and that therefore the question of delay in consideration of the representation did not arise. P. B. R. Petitions allowed.