ICHHU DEVI CHORARIA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640 · Decided: 09-09-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
+ 
640 
ICHHU DEVI CHORARIA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
September 9, 1980 
(P. N. BHAGWATr AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 1950, Article 22(5)-Conservation of Foreign Exchange 
and Prevention ,of 
Smuggling Activities 
Act, 1974, Section 3(3)--Detenu-
C 
Detention ordered for smuggling and abetting smuggling of goods-Represen-
tation of detenu against detention-Request of detenu for supply of copies of 
statements ~nd documents referred to in grounds of detention-Unreasonable 
delay in consideration of representation as well as request of dete1iu-N o expla-
mation for delay-Continued detention of detenu whether illegal and void-
Detenu whether entitled to be released. 
D 
The detenu was taken under detention on 4th June, 1980 by an order of 
detention dated 27th May, 1980. 
The order of detention recited that with 
a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and abetting the smuggling of 
goods it was necessary to detain him. 
After detention he was also served on 
the same day,· the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention referred to 
several documents and statements including two tape recorded conversations. 
The detenu addressed a letter dated 6th June, 1980 asking for all st,1tements, 
E 
documents and material to enable him to make an effective representation 
against his detention. 
The detenu also sent a representation dated 9th June, 
1980 to the Deputy Secretary once again requesting him to supply immediately 
. the documents etc. relied upon in the grounds of detention and to furnish the 
transcripts of the tapes a'; also to produce the original tapes, so that he could 
>io 
prove that the voice recorded on· the tapes was not his. The detenu addressed 
another representation dated 26th June, 1980 to the Chairman of the Advisory 
F 
Board, the Central Government and the Deputy Secretary to the State Govern-
-~ 
ment praying for revocation of the order of detention, wherein he pointed 
out that by his letters dated 5th, 9th and 14th June, 1980, he had requested 
for the tapes to be supplied to enabl~ him to prove that the voice recorded 
on the tape,~ was not his and that this request had not been complied with 
and in the circumstances the hearing of the case before the Advisory Boarµ. 
would be futile. 
Meanwhile the Investigating Officer of the Customs Depart-
G 
ment was deputed to the Centtal Prison alongwith the tapes, and the tapes 
were played in the presence of the detenu and the Deputy Superintendent of 
the Central Prison on 8th July, 1980. The representations of the detenu were 
examined by the government, who by their lettet dated 15th July, 1980 rejected 
the representations and declined to revoke the order of detention. 
'1' 
In the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by the 
H 
mother of the detenu it was contended : (1) that the detaining authority did 
not serve on the detenu alongwith the grounds of detention, copies of the 
statements, documents and tapes referred to in the grounds of detention and 
it could not, therefore, be said that the grounds of detention wen; duly served 
.:> :+.r- ,,_ -- r~~.~~."':'.~"·'"'~,:-~·rr· 
' / / 
-- . r-·~ ., 
ICHHU DEVL v, UNION 
6 41 
.on the detenu as required by sub-section (3) of section 3 of the COFEPOSA:· 
Act and clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution, and (2) that the, detaining 
authority did not supply copies of such statements, documents and ·-materials'. 
until 11th July, 1980 and on that day also, what were supplied were merely 
copies of the statements and documents and not copies of· the tapes which 
were supplied only on 20th July, 1980 and that this delay was wholly' unjustified· 
and the detenu was thus denied the earliest opportunity of making an effective 
representation and consequently the continued detention of the detenu was 
illegal and void. 
Allowing the writ petition. 
HELD : I. There was unreasonable delay on the part of the detaining 
authority in supplying. to the detenu copies of all the relevant documents, and 
therefore his continued detention was illegal and void. ·The detenu was entitled 
A 
B 
to be releas~d forthwith from detention. [654 F] 
(: 
2. The power of Preventive detention can be justified only in the interest, 
. of public security and order and It. is tolerated in aj free society only as a 
necessary evil. 
The power to detain without trial is an extraordinary power 
constituting encroachment on personal liberty and it is the duty of the courts

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