NARENDRA PURSHOTAM UMRAO ETC. versus B. B. GUJRAL & ORS.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 315 · Decided: 17-11-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
31 5 
NARENDRA PURSHOTAM UMRAO ETC. 
v. 
B. B. GUJRAL & ORS. 
November 17, 1978 
fR. S. SARKARIA, V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND A. P. SEN, JJ.J 
Conservation .of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Acti1'ities 
Act, 1974---S. 3(1)--Scnpe Of-S. 8(b)-ConJtitutional safeguards 
enibodfrd 
B 
~ 
in Art. 22(5) 1nust he read into S. 8(b). 
• 
, . 
-")< 
The :1ppdh1nt \Vas detained under s. 3(1) of the 
Ccnsc1va:tion of Foreig.n 
Exchange ~ld Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to 
C 
prevent him from smuggling goods. Two representations made by him against 
bis detention \Vere forwarded by the Government to the Advisory Board \vilh 
its comments. 
He was later produced before the Advisory Board. 
On receipt 
of the Advisory Board's report that there was sufficient ca.use for detention, th.:: 
order of detention was confirmed by the Government. 
The High Court dismissed his petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 
D 
In appeal the appellant challenged the order of detention on the ground that 
(1) it was in violation of the right guaranteed under Art. 22(5) inasmuch as 
the Government withheld consideration of the representations made by him ti!I 
a.fter the hearing by the Ad'.\isory Board, and (2) the impugned order of detcn· 
tion was bad due to non·applic<!.tion of mind of the detaining authority inasmuch 
as the facts alleged 
clearly and distinctly showed that the appeilant did not 
hi1nself snu1g~le the goods. 
E 
Disn!i~sing th<.:: appenl, 
HELD: (l)(a) There was no warrant for the submission that the disposal 
of the representations made by the Government was not in conformity with Art. 
22(5) of the Constitution. 
[319HJ 
(b) It is well settled that in case of preventive detention of a citizen, ,.<\rt. 
F 
22(5) of the Constitution enjoins that the obligation of the appropriate Govern· 
ri1e~1t to afford the detenu an opportunity to make a representation and to con~ 
sider that representa.tion is distinct from the Government's obligation to con· 
stitute a Board and to communicate the representation, amongst other ma1erials, 
to tht! HoarJ to ensble it to forn1 its opinion and to 0btain :iUCh opinion. f321EJ 
Abdul Karim & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, [1969] 3 SCR 479; Pankaj 
G 
Kuntor Chakraborty &: Ors. v. State of West Bengal, [1970] 1 SCR 543, Khoirul 
Haque v. The State of West Bengal W. P. No. 246 of 1969, decided on Septem~ 
ber 10, 1969, layanarayan Sukut v. State of West BenKal, [1970] 3 SCR 225; 
Dhurus Kanu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 571; referred to. 
(c) The constitutional safeguards embodied in Art. 22(5) must be read 
into the provisions of s. 8(b) of the Conservation of Foreign fuch<WJ.ge and 
PreventiQt.1 of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 to prevent any arbitrary executive 
H 
action. 
Merely because there is no express provision in s. 8(b) of the Act 
placing an obligation to forward the representation made by the detcnu along· 
A 
316 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 2 S.C.R. 
with the reference to the Advisory Board unlike the provisions contained in 
s. 9 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 and s. IO of the Maintenance of 
Internal Security Act, 1971, it ca.nnot be said that there is no obligation. cast 
0n the Government to consider the representation made by the detenu befor1~ 
forwarding it to the Advisory Board. [325C; 322D-E] 
'Thaneshwar Singh v. The Union of India & Ors., Cr. W. No. 6 of 1978. 
B 
decided on September 25, 1978 (Delhi High Court); over-ruied. 
c 
D 
(d) When the liberty of the subject is involved, whether it is under the 
Preventive Detention Act or the Maintenance of Internal Security Act or the 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 
it is the bounden duty of the Court to satisfy itself that all the safeguards 
provided by the law had been scrupulously observed 'ind that, the subject v1as not 
deprived of his personal liberty otherwise tha·n in accordance wich l<nv. [322F-G] 
(e) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made u':lder any 
law providing for preventive detention the authority making the order shall, 
as soon as may be, communicate to such person the ground on which the order 
had been 1nade and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making represen-
tations against the order. 
These procedural safeguards are ingrained in our 
system of judicial interpretation. 
The power of preventive detention by the 
Government under the Act is necessarily subject to the li

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