D.ANURADHA versus JOINT SECRETARY AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 186 · Decided: 24-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D.ANURADHA 
v. 
JOINT SECRETARY AND ANR. 
APRIL 24, 2006 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974----Sections 3(1) and 8(c): 
Reference to Advisory Board-Made within stipulated period-However, 
all material papers sent to it a week after expiry of that period-Effect of-· 
Held: It was not a case where all relevant materials were not before the 
Advisory Board at the time it took its decision-Delay in sending the materials 
was due t'J inadvertence and did not vitiate the reference-It was especially 
D so, as the Advisory Board has eleven weeks from date of detention to give its 
opinion, and is also empowered to call for any information from appropriate 
Government--Constitution of India, 1950, Article 22. 
Representations on behalf of detenue-One of them in regional language 
and pending with authorities neither disposed by them within time nor sent to 
E Advisory Board with reference-Effect of-Held: All representations were 
considered in time except one in regional language whose delay in 
consideration was explained by non-availability of its translated copy, and 
was not so serious as to lead to setting aside of the detention order-Fact that 
representation was not sent to the Advisory Board did not prejudice the detenue 
F especially as all materials available with State Government were sent to it. 
Detention order-Based on various grounds-Some materials not placed 
before detaining authority-Effect of-Held: It would only affect one of the 
grounds in detention order-Detention as a whole cannot be held to be illegal 
as detention order would stand on its own on basis of other grounds-If there 
G are severable grounds, vague nature of one ground would not vitiate entire 
detention order. 
Husband of appellant was detained under Section 3(1) of the 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities 
Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). She challenged the order of detention in High 
If 
186 
D. ANURADHA v. JOINT SECRETARY 
187 
Court by filing a Habeas Corpus Petition. High Court upheld the detention. A 
Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that (i) though the reference to COFEPOSA. 
Advisor,y .Board was made within.the stipulated period qf five weeks from 
date of detention, all the material papers. were sent to it subsequ_ently, after 
about ;i week of expiry of that period, therefore, for all practical purp9ses,. B 
the reference was beyond the period to five weeks of detention and the 
entire proceedings were vitiated; (ii) her representation to Government 
against detention was not sent to the Advisory Board along with the 
reference, (iii) this representation was disposed of after an inordinate 
delay, thereby causing serious prejudice to detenue, which itself was C 
sufficient to set aside the detention order, (iv) reply of a person, allegedly 
an erstwhile Director of a Company in Singapore, to investigating 
authority about receipt of money to make the detenue Director thereof, 
and several other documents were received by sponsoring authority, but 
not placed before detaining authority, thereby serious prejudice was 
caused to the detenue. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. IHs true that it is a valuable right of the detenue to have 
D 
the validity of his detention .examined by the Advisory Board. It is 
fundamental right of the detenue guaranteed under Article 22 of the E 
Constitution. Any violation of the procedure is to be viewed seriously. But 
the delay of only one week in sending some of the relevant records may 
not by itself make the whole reference illegal and vitiated. Under. clause 
(c) of Section 8 of COFEPOSA, a period of eleven weeks from the date of 
the detention is given to the Advisory Board to give its opinion. The F 
Advisory Board is also empowered to call for any information from the 
appropriate Government. If the relevant materials were not placed before 
the Advisory Board at the time it had taken the decision, that would have· 
been a serious violation of the right guaranteed under ·Art. 22 of the 
Constitution. The fact that merely because some of the materials were 
inadvertently not sent along with the reference, will not vitiate the G 
proceedings. [192-A-D] 
lcchu Devi v. Union of India and Ors., [1980] 4 SCC 531-referred to. 
2. All the representations filed on behalf of detenue were considered 
in time, except one filed by his wife in Tamil languag

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.