JASEELA SHAJI versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: [2024] 9 S.C.R. 313 · Decided: 12-09-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 9 S.C.R. 313 : 2024 INSC 683
Jaseela Shaji 
v. 
The Union of India & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 3083 of 2024)
12 September 2024
[B.R. Gavai,* Prashant Kumar Mishra and  
K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as to whether the non-supply of the statement of the 
person stating about the detenu’s dealing in foreign exchange 
to the detenu, has affected the right of the detenu to make an 
effective representation u/Art. 22(5); and whether non-receipt of 
the representation and the delay in deciding the representation by 
the Detaining Authority and the Central Government would affect 
the right of detenu u/Art.22(5) of the Constitution.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art. 22(5) – Protection against arrest 
and detention – Right of the detenu to make an effective 
representation – Detention order u/s. 3(1) of the COFEPOSA 
directing detention of the detenu to prevent him from acting 
in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign 
exchange in future – Non-supply of the statement of the 
person stating about the detenu’s dealing in foreign exchange, 
to the detenu – Also, non-receipt of the representation and 
the delay in deciding the representation by the Detaining 
Authority and the Central Government – Effect of, on right 
of the detenu u/Art. 22(5):
Held: Though it may not be necessary to furnish copies of each 
and every document to which a casual or passing reference has 
been made by the Detaining Authority in making the order of 
detention, it is imperative that every such document which has 
been relied on by the Detaining Authority and which affects the 
right of the detenu to make an effective representation u/Art. 
22(5) has to be supplied to the detenu – Failure to furnish copies 
* Author
314
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of such documents as relied on by the Detaining Authority would 
amount to violation of the fundamental right guaranteed u/Art. 
22(5) – Eight factual aspects were taken into consideration by 
the Detaining Authority while arriving at its subjective satisfaction 
that the detenu has been engaging himself in activities which 
adversely affected the augmentation of foreign exchange 
resources of the country – Statement of the said person is a vital 
link for transactions involving the detenu – It cannot be said that 
the statements of the said person are just a casual or a passing 
reference, on the contrary, they formed the basis for arriving at 
a subjective satisfaction by the Detaining Authority – Documents 
relied on by the Detaining Authority which form the basis of 
the material facts which have been taken into consideration to 
form a chain of events could not be severed and the High Court 
was not justified in coming to a finding that despite eschewing 
of certain material taken into consideration by the Detaining 
Authority, the detention order can be sustained by holding that 
the Detaining Authority would have arrived at such a subjective 
satisfaction even without such material  – Non-supply of the 
statements of the said person affected the right of the detenu to 
make an effective representation u/Art. 22(5) and as such, the 
detention is vitiated on the said ground – As regards, non-receipt 
of the representation and delay in deciding the representation 
by the Detaining Authority and the Central Government, on 
account of casual, callous and negligent approach of the Prison 
Authorities, the representation of the detenu could not reach 
to the Detaining Authority and the Central Government within 
a reasonable period – There was about nine months’ delay in 
deciding the representation – Even otherwise, there has been a 
delay of 27/20 days on the part of the Central Government and 
the Detaining Authority in deciding the representation when it 
was called from the Prison Authorities after notice was issued – 
No explanation as to what caused such a delay in deciding the 
said representations – On mere casual or callous and, negligent 
approach on the part of the Jail Authorities in communicating 
the representation of the detenu, the valuable right available to 
detenu to have his representation decided expeditiously cannot 
be denied – Prison Authorities to ensure that the representations 
are sent to Competent Authorities immediately after the receipt 
thereof – In the present era of technological development, 
the representation can be sent through email within a day – 
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 
315
Jaseela Shaji v. The Un

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