GANGA RAMCHAND BHARVANI versus UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 343 · Decided: 01-08-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
GANGA RAMCHAND BHARV M'1 
v. 
UNDER SECRETARY TO THE 90VERNMENT .OF 
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
August 1, 1980. 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
' 
~< 
343 
.A 
B 
Foreign Exchange Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974-Section 
3(i)--Scope of. 
C 
Delay in supplying grounds of detention-If invalidates detention. 
The two detenus were carrying on business in diamonds and precious 
stones: 
The Customs Officer at' Bombay raided their premises and seized a 
huge quantity of valuables. 
During interrogation they claimed that some of 
·the articles seized were not smuggled goods but were locally acquired and 
·gave names of four persons from whom they were acquired. 
The detenus 
D 
were released on bail by the Magistrate on certain conditions. 
An order of detention under section 3(i) of the COFEPOSA, 1974 alongwith 
the grounds of detention was served on the detenus 'on Feb. 16, 1980. 
The 
wife of the detenu addressed a letter on Feb. 18, 1980 to the first respondent 
!requesting him to furnish the deterius with the materials relied upom by 
the detaining authority in the grounds of detention. 
The detenu 1eceived 
E 
a letter dated March 14, 1980 from the State Government on March 25, 
1980 declining the request for supply of copies. The detenu had also sent 
a petition through the Central Government on March 11, 1980 complaining 
the non supply of copies of the necessary documents and also prayed for 
the revocation of the order of detention. 
On April 3, 1980 the Central 
·Government wrote to the detenu that his. request for revocation had .been 
reje;ted. The Central Government, however, advised the State Government 
J.I' 
to furnish the detenu with the copies of the required documents. 
As a 
result, the copies were received by the detenu on April 3, 1980. The, detenu 
had also made a representation to the. State Government on March 24, 1980 
which, according to the information by the counsel of Respondent No. 1, 
was declined. 
The counsel for the detenus 
challenged the 
detention order on the 
G 
grounds; (i) that the detaining authority callously and deliberately refused 
to supply the copiest of the statements and documents relied upon in the 
grounds of detention, (ii) the detenu had a constitutional right to be afforded 
a fair and full opportunity ·to make an effective representation against their 
.detention and his representation dated March 11; 1980, was wrongly rejected 
by an unauthorised person. 
The respondent argued that (i) the substance of 
the information required had ~en incorporated in the grounds of detention 
,H 
which were served on the detenus, (ii) the 
supply of 
further information 
would have exposed the informants to bodily harm and the information would 
have adversely affected the investigation· and harmed public interest. 
,. 
344 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 1 S.C.R. 
A. 
Accepting the petition 
D 
HELD : The very fact that soon after the directions of the Central 
Government copies were ready and despatched to the detenus within three days 
thereof, shows that there was no physical difficulty in preparing and supplying 
the copies to the detenus, with due promptitude. [349A-BJ 
It is well settled that "the constitutional imperatives enacted in Article 
22(5) of 'the Constitution are two-fold : (i) the detaining authority must, as 
soon as may be, that is, as soon as practicable after the detention, communicate 
to the detenu the grounds on which the order has been made and (ii) the 
detaining authority must afford the detenu the earliest opportunity oi ·making 
a representation against the detention order. 
In the context 'grounds' does 
not merely mean a recital or reproduction of a ground of satisfaction of 
the authority in the language of section 3, nor is its connotation restricted 
to a bare statement of conclusion of fact. 
Nothing less than all the. basic 
facts and materials which influenced the detaining authority in making the 
order of detention must be communicated to the detei:me. [350B·D] 
The mere fact that the grounds of detention ·served on the detenu are 
elaborate, does not absolve the detaining authority fromr its constitutional 
responsibility to supply all the basic facts and materials relied upon in the 
grounds to the detenu. 
In the instant case, the grounds contain only the 
substance of the statements, while the · detenu had asked for copies of the 
full text of those statements. [350E-F] 
Khudiram Das· v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. [

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