RATTAN SINGH ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 1010 · Decided: 22-10-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
!OH) 
B 
c 
D 
E 
(1 
G 
H 
RATTAN SINGH ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
October 22, 1981 
[ Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., A. VARADARAJAN AND 
AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ. ] 
Conservation af Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 
1974-Petitioner's representation to Central Government submitted through Jail 
Superintendent not forwarded-Effect of-Scope of power of Central Government 
und.r section JI (I). 
' 
The petitioner, who was detained under section 3(1 l of the Conservation of 
Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smugg1ing Activities Act, 1974 made (on 
April 19, 1981) through the Jail Superintendent representations simultaneously to 
the State Government as well as the Central Government against the order of his 
detention. In his petition under Article 32 of the Constitution he contended that 
the failure of,, the Central Government to consider his representation inspite of the 
long passage of time had rendered his detention illegal. 
The Jail Superintendent in his affidavit stated that the representation was 
forwarded to the State Government. The State Government after considering 
his representation rejected it. 
Allowing the petitions 
HELD : The detention is illegal. [1012 F] 
The petitioner~ had been unaccountably deprived of a valuable right to 
defend and assert his fundamental right to personal liberty. Laws of preventive 
detention afford only a modicum of safeguards to person detained under them 
and if freedom and liberty are to have any meaning in our democratic set up it is 
essential that at least those safeguards are not denied to the detenu. If the power 
conferred on the Central Government by section 11(1) of the Act to revoke an 
order of detention even if it was made by 1he _State Government ·or its officers 
is to be real and effective, it must imply the right in a detenu to make a repre-
sentation to the Central Government against the order of detention. In the 
instant case (the failure on the part either of the Jail Superintendent or the 
State Government to forward the detenu's representation to the Central Govern-
ment has deprived him of the valuable right to have his detention revoked by 
that Government. [1012 C·F] 
Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan, [1980] 2 S.C.C. 321 and Shyam Amba/al 
Siroya v. Union of India, [1980] 2 S.C.C. 346, referred to. 
-
7 
--
-
• 
RATTAN SINGH v. PUNJAB (Chandrachud, C. J.) 
IOI I 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 3614 & 3647 of 
A 
1981. 
Harjinder Singh for the Petitioner. 
N. S. Das Bahl and M. S. Dhillon for Respondent No. I. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. : By this petition fonder Article 32 of the 
Constitution the petitioner challenges the validity of an order dated 
March 27, 1981 passed by respondent l, the State of Punjab, under 
section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention 
of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. 
On April 19, !981, while the petitioner was in detention, his 
advocate, Shri Harjinder Singh, wrote a letter to the Superintendent 
B 
c 
of Central Jail, Amritsar, enclosing therewith two representations 
drafted on behalf of the petitioner, one of which was addressed to 
D 
the Joint Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Punjab, 
11< 
Chandigarh, and the other to the Secretary, Union Ministry of 
Finance, Department of Revenue, New ~Delhi. The Jail Superinten-
dent was requested by the aforesaid letter that the representations 
be forwarded to the State Government and the Central Government 
after obtaining the signatures of the detenu thereon. The conten-
E 
tion of the petitioner is that in spite of the long passage of time, the 
representation to the Central Government has not so far been con-
sidered by it, rendering his detention illegal. 
In his counter-affidavit dated July 29, 1981. the Under Secre-
tary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department 
of Revenue), COFEPOSA Unit, New Delhi says that "no represen-
tation by or on behalf of the detenu relating to his detention has 
been received by the Central Government. 
As such, the question 
of any delay in the disposal of such a representation does not arise". 
In his affidavit dated July 21, 1981 the P.P.S. (I), Superintendent, 
Central Jail, Amritsar says that the representation of the detenu 
Rattan Singh was forwarded to the Punjab Government. The affi-
davit of Smt. Shyama Mann, Joint Secretary to Government, Punjab, 
Home Department, Chandigarh shows that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.