RAZIA UMAR BAKSHI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 1398 · Decided: 23-06-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
... 
1398 
RAZIA UMAR BAKSHI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
June 23, 1980 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, J.] 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities 
Act, Section 3-When grounds of detention are couched in English, a language 
not known to the detenu and the grounds are not explained in the language 
known to the detenu either, the detention order is vitiated-Fact that the 
grounds of detention was explained to the detenu in the language should be · 
explained by sworn affidavit by the afjicer who explained the grounds and not 
by any other-Constitution of India, Article 22(5)-Right to repre.{entation 10 
the Central Government Section 11 of COFEPO,S'A, explained. 
Allowing the petition, the Court 
,HELD : 1. Where. the detaining authority is s:1tisfied that the grounds ai:-e 
couched in a language which is not known to the detenu, it must see to it 
that the grounds are explained to the detenu, a trv.nslated script is given to 
him and the· grounds bear some sort of a certificate to show that the grounds 
have been explained to the detenu in the language, which he understands. 
[1400 D-El 
A bare denial at the stage when the Habeas Corpus petition is :filed in ·1he 
court by the detaining authority that these formalities ~ere observed would be 
of no consequence particularly when it is not supported by any document or 
by any affidavit of the person who had done the job of explaining or trans-
lation. 
[1400 E-F] 
Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack and Anr. [1968] 1 SCR 
227; followed. 
2. Courts frown on detention without trial and insist on the strict compli-
ance of the constitutional safeguards enshrined in .A.rticle 22(5) to the letter 
of the law, because a non-compliance of these safeguards would itself be 
sufficient to vitiate the order of detention. [1400 l~-G] 
3. Section 11 of COFEPOSA confers a constitutionat right on the detenu 
to have his representation considered by . the Centml Government. It is true 
that the Central Government has a discretion to revoke or confirm the deten-
tion but the detenu' has undoubtedJy a right that his representation should be 
considered by the Central Government for whatever worth it is. 
The mere 
fact the.t the detenu had sent a copy to the Central Government does not ab-
solve the detaining authority from the statutory duty of forwarding the repre-
sentation to the Central Govennent. [1401 B-D] 
[The Court expressed the hope that in future the detaining authorities 
should fully apply their mind so as to result in a. strict compliance of the 
constitutional safeguards contained in the Constitution, more particularly, be-
cause the liberty of the subject is in peril.] 
• 
.j/ 
t • 
• 
.. 
RAZIA UMAR BAKSHI v. UNION OF INDIA (Fazal Ali, !.) 
1399 
OiuGINAL JURISDICTION: :Writ Petition No. 631 of 1980. 
A 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution.) 
Ram Jethmalani, M. M. Lodha and Harjinder, Singh for 
!he 
Petitioner. 
R. B. Datar, R. N. Sachthey and M. N. Shroff for the Respon-
dents. 
FAZAL Au, J. (Vacation Judge) The detenu was detained under 
sub-Section ( 1) of Section 3 of The. Conservation of Foreign Exchange 
aad Prevention of Smuggling Activities (in short COFEPOSA) by 
tho Government of Gujarat by its order dated January 30, 1980. 
Tue.order was passed by Mr. P. M. Shah, Deputy Secretary to the 
Government of Gujarat who authenticated the said order on behalf 
of the State Government. The detenu while making a representation 
to the State Government .also prayed for supply of documents to 
him in order to make a more ef!.ective representation. 
These docu-
ments however were supplied on March 27, 1980 although the order 
of detention was itself confirmed on March 21, 1980. In the repre-
sentation sent to the Government, the detenu had made a 
specific 
prayer that his representation shou!d be forwarded to the Central 
Government for being considered. 
In support of the rule, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, counsel 
appearing 
fot the detenu raised two points before this ·Court. In the first place 
it 'Was submitted that the counsel on behalf of the detenu has expressly 
pleaded that the grounds of detention were couched in English, a 
hlnguage which the detenu did not understand at all and these grounds 
were not explained to him. 
A specific ground on this aspect of the 
matter has ~n taken in ground No. XID at page 21 of the petition 
which may be extracted thus :-
"That the detenu does not know English. . The gr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.