GURDEV SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 105 · Decided: 05-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

GURDEV SINGH 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 5, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.) 
B 
Conservation qf Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activi-
ties Act, 1974: Section 3( I )-Detention Order-Detaining authority-Subjec-
tive satisfaction of-Principles-Held: No straightjacket .formula or set prin-
ciples can be laid down to detennine whether the detention order suffers .fro111 
C 
non-application qf mind-The Act does not lay down any set parameters for 
arriving at the subjective satisfat:tion of the detaining authority-The matter 
is left to the subjective satisfaction qf the competent authority. 
The appellant's son was detained and kept in custody under Section 
3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smug-
gling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The grounds of detention were 
communicated to the detenu under Section 3(3) of COFEPOSA and Arti-
cle 22(5) of the Constitution. The representations of the detenu were re-
jected by the Central Government. The writ petition filed on behalf of the 
detenu was dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal. 
Ou behalf of the appellant it was contended that the order of 
detention was vitiated by non-consideration of relevant materials by the 
detaining authority and non-application of mind and that the High Court 
erred in confirming such illegal and invalid order of detention. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining 
Authority in the .case is based on consideration of all the relevant materi-
D 
E 
F 
als placed before it by the sponsoring authority. It is not the case of the 
G 
appellant that the sponsoring authority did not place before the detaining 
authority any material in its possession, which is relevant, and material 
for the purpose and such material, if considered by the detaining author-
ity, might have result in taking a different view in the matter. All that is 
contended on behalf of the detenu is that the detaining authority should 
H 
105 
106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
have taken further steps before being satisfied that a case for detention 
under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smug-
gling Acthities Act, 1974 has been made out against the detenu. Whether 
the detention order suffers from non-application of mind by the detaining 
authority is not a matter to he examined according to any straightjacket 
B 
formnla or set principles. It depends on the facts and circumstances of the 
case, the nature of the activities alleged against the Detenu, the materials 
collected in support of such allegations, the propensity and potentiality of 
the Deteuu in indulging in such activities, etc. The Act does not lay down 
any set parameters for arriving at the subjective satisfaction by the 
c 
detaining authority. Keeping in view the purpose for which the enactment 
is made and the purpose it is intended to achieve, Parliament has not laid 
' 
down any set standards for the detaining authority to decide whether an 
order of detention should be passed again a person. The matter is left to 
the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority. (116-A-B-C-D-E] 
D 
A. Sowkath Ali v. Union of India, [2000] 7 SCC 148, Union of India v, 
E 
F 
Arvind Shergill, (2000] 7 SCC 601, Ahmed Nassar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 
[1999] 8 SCC 473; Sanjay KumarAuarwal v. Union of India, (1990] 3 SCC 
309, Ashadevi v. K. Shivraj, (1979] l SCC 222 and Ayya alias Ayub v. State 
of U.P., [1989] l SCC 374, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1126 
of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.12.2000 of the Delhi High Court 
in Cr!. W.P. No. 352 of 2000. 
V.A. Mohta, K.K. Srivastava and Manoj Prasad for the Appellant. 
Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, T.V. Ratnam, K. Subba 
Rao and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave is granted. 
This appeal, filed by- special leave, by Gurdev Singh father of the 
detenu Swarn Singh Sandhu, is directed against the judgment and order dated 
H 
1.12.2000 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.352 of 2000, 
GURDEV SINGH v. U.0.l. [MOHAPATRA, l.] 
107 
Gurdev Singh v. Union qf India & Ors., dismissing the writ petition. 
A 
At the commencement of hearing of the case Shri V.A.Mohta, learned 
senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the detenu 
ha

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