LexA.C. RAZIA versus GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A.C. RAZIA A v. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND ORS. JANUARY 12, 2004 [V.N. KHARE, C.J., P. VENKATARAMA REDD! AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] B Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974-Section I I-Detention-Representation of detenu- Consideration of-Power of Central Government-Extent of-Translated copy C of Malayalam documents not supplied to the Central Government-Effect of- Held (per majority). depends upon facts of each case-Translated contents of documents extracted in detention order-Held. consideration of representation of detenu not vitiated-Constitution of India-Articles 22(4) and (5). One 'A' was intercepted and found possessing foreign currencies. In D his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, 'A' stated that the currencies were entrusted to him by the husband of the petitioner. Accordingly, statement of husband of the petitioner was also recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in which he confessed the offence. All statements recorded were in Malayalam. Both 'A' and the husband of the petitioner subsequently retracted from their confessions. E The documents whereby confessional statements were retracted were also in Malayalam. The State Government passed an order of detention of the husband of the petitioner. The detention order elaborately referred to the contents of the relevant documents including the statements recorded under Section F 108 of the Customs Act and retraction thereof. The dentenu made representations in Malayalam to the State Government and Central Government. The State Governinent as well as the Central Government rejected the representation filed on behalf of the detenu. The Advisory Board also confirmed the detention order. G Thereafter, writ petition was filed challenging the order of detention, which was dismissed by the High Court. The wife of the detenu filed a special leave petition as well as writ petition before this court. The petitioner contended that many of the 437 H 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] I S.C.R. A documents were in Malayalam and no translation thereof was provided >- \ to the officials of the Central Government who considered the representation of the detenu. As the officials were not acquainted with Malayalam language, they could not have applied their minds to the relevant Malayalam documents and therefore, disposal of representation was not made in accordance with law. The matter was before a two Judge B Bench of this Court and in view of their different opinions, came to be referred to the present 3 Judge Bench. c Dismissing the special leave petition and the writ petition by a majority, the Court HELD: Per Reddi, J. (for himself and Khare, C. J.) I. I. The law of preventive det~ntion is a drastic law as it authorises detention without trial in a Court of law and is an encroachment on the liberty of an individual which is cherished freedom under the Constitution D of India. At the same time, the need for such law in larger public or national interest has been recognised by the Constitution. In order to mitigate tht! rigour of the law, certain minimum safeguards have been provided in the Constitution in order to ensure that there is no unjustified detention and the detention should not continue unnecessarily. The preventive detention laws such as COFEPOSA apart from ensuring the E minimum safeguards expressly man.dated by the Constitution, have supplemented to these safeguards especially by making provisions enabling scrutiny and review of detention order by more than one authority on the representation of the detenu or otherwise. By judicial interpretation, some more ancillary safeguards to effectuate the constitutional guarantees F flowing from Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been carved out. (477-D-E( "· 1 1.2. The combined effect of the constitutional and statutory provisions from the point of view of the detenu's right to make the representation is to provide more than one forum to re-examine or review G the case of the detenu and to afford him various means of redressal of his grievance. (449-A( Kamlesh Kumar fshwardas Patel etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. ;~ (1995( 4 SCC 51; Sk. Abdul Karim and Ors. v. State of West Bengal, (1969( I SCC 433; Pankaj Kumar Chakrabarty v. State of W.B., (1969( 3 SCC 400; H Amir Shad Khan v. L. Hming/iana and Ors., 11991 ( 4 SCC 39 and Razia Umar A.C. RAZIA v.GOVERNMENTO
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.