P. U. IQBAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 515 · Decided: 20-12-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

P. U. IQBAL 
A 
V. 
If' 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 20, 1991 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND M. FATHIMA BEE:VI, JJ.] 
B 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of smuggling Activi-
ties Act, 1974-Preamble Sections 3,9,10-Detention Order-Object and pur-
pose-Duty of determining and executing authorities indicated. 
j 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of smuggling Activi- c 
ties Act, 1974-Sections 3,9,10-Detention order passed on 21.8.1989 and 
arrest of detenue on 10.8.1990-Delay of nearly one year-Effect of 
The detenu-petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the 
Constitution of India challenging the detention order dated 21.8.1989 D 
passed by the second respondent under section 3(i)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activi-
~ 
ties Act, 197 4. 
Following the order of the second respondent on 7;9.90, the first 
respondent made a declaratation under Section 9(i) of the Act and E 
thereafter passed an order under Section 10 of the Act that "the detention 
to be continued for a period of 2 years from 9.8.90". 
Though the order was passed on 21.8.1989, it was executed only on 
10.8.90, after about one year. 
F 
The petitioner contended that the inordinate and unreasonable 
delay between the date of the order of detention and the date of' arrest of 
the detenu negatived the real and genuineness of the subjective satisfaction 
of the detaining authority as regards the necessity for detaining the 
petitioner and therefore, the order to be set aside. 
• 
G 
-... 
On the question-Whether there was an unreasonable delay in exe-
coting the order of detention from the date of passing of the detention 
order throwing considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective 
satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards the necessity to detain the 
petitioner-this Court, allowing the wirt petition, 
H 
515 
516 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] SUPP. 3 S. C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1. An order of detention is not a curative or reformative or -
'" 
punitive action but a preventive action, the avowed object of which being 
:---
to prevent the anti-social and subversive elements from imperilling the 
welfare of the country or the security of the nation or from disturbing the 
public tranguility or from indu_lging in smuggling activities or from 
engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances 
B etc. As it is borne out from the preamble of the COFEPOSA Act, the 
detention order under the Act is made with an object of preventing "the 
violations of foreign exchange regulations and smuggling activities which 
are having an increasingly deleterious effect on the national economy" and 
thereby posing "a serious effect on the security of the country". 
[519G-520B] 
c 
2. In view of the object of the preventive detention, it becomes very 
imperative on the part of the detaining authority as well as the executing 
authorities to,be very vigilant and keep their eyes skinned but not to turn 
a blind eye in securing the detenu and executing the detention order 
because any indifferent attitude on the part of the detaining authority or 
D executing authority will defeat the very purpose of the preventive action 
and turn the detention order as a dead letter and frustrate the entire 
,. 
proceedings. [520 D-E] 
' 
3. An unreasonable and unexplained delay in_ securing a detenu and 
detaining him vitiates the detention order. [520 HJ 
E 
4. If there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order of 
detention and the date of arrest of the detenu, such delay unless satisfac-
torily explained throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the 
requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the 
detention order and consequently render the detention order bad and 
invalid because the 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of the 
F 
detention and the purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu. 
[522 H, 523-A] 
5. A question whether the delay is unreasonable and stands unex-
plained depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. [523 A] 
\.-
6. In the present case, the circumstances indicate that the detaining 
..-
G authority after passing the detention order was indifferent in securing· the 
detenu by not taking proper action with greater promptitude. The police 
officials have treated the warrant of arrest in a very casual manner and 
unduly delayed its execution: In particular, t

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