SAFIYA versus GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 832 · Decided: 28-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SAFIYA 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA 
JULY 28, 2003 
B 
[M.B. SHAH AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
COFEPOSA Act; Section 3(J)(iv): 
Preventive detention on the ground of involvement in smuggling 
C activities-Representations against detention rejected by the Detaining 
Authority and the Central Government-Challenge to-Dismissed by the 
High Court-On appeal, Held: There was no undue or unexplained delay in 
disposing of the representation by the Central Government after receipt of 
English translation of documents from the State Government-Revocation of 
D detention order against the other detenu in the same matter not relevant 
since detention order against detenu was issued only after subjective 
satisfaction of the authorities-Hence, High Court rightly held that the 
detenu has violated the provision of law against the larger national interest. 
E 
Words and Phrases: 
'subjective satisfaction '-Meaning of 
According to the prosecution, in a search conducted by the Department 
of Excise and Customs, the detenu was involved in smuggling activities. 
Consequently, he was detained under preventive detention as per provisions 
F under Section 3(1)(iv) of the CO FE POSA Act. His representations against 
detention were rejected by the Detaining Authority as well as the Central 
Government. Wife of the detenu challenged the detention before the High 
Court. High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that since the opinion of the Advisory 
G Board that no sufficient grounds existed for the detention of another detenu 
in the same transaction/occurrence, was not placed before the authority, it 
vitiated his subjective satisfaction, that there was inordinate delay caused in 
considerin~ the representation; and that relevant documents in Malayalam 
were not translated into English; that due to non-availability of relevant 
H 
832 
... 
SAFIY Av. GOVT. OF KERALA 
833 
documents in English, consideration of his representation by the authority A 
was no consideration in the eyes of law; and that the detention order was 
vitiated. 
On behalf of the Union of India, it was submitted that there was no 
unexplained delay in disposing of the representations of the detenu by the 
Central Government 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Revocation of the detention order as against other detenu 
has no relevance as far as the detenu in the instant case is concerned. Advisory 
Board, after hearing the detenu, opined that there were sufficient grounds C 
for the detention of the detenu. Under the circumstances, non-placing of the 
order revoking the detention order of other detenu before the Advisory Board 
does not vitiate the detention order issued against the detenu. The detention 
order was passed after perusing the relevant and material documents and after 
arriving at subjective satisfaction of the authorities. (837-B-D) 
D 
1.2. The dates and other details given in the counter affidavit by the 
Central Government would only show that there has been no undue or 
unexplained delay in disposing of the representation of the detenu. [838-BJ 
1.3. The Detaining Authority had forwarded to the Central Government E 
a report under Section 3(2) of the COFEPOSA Act, which consisted of 
Detention Order, the ground of detention and relied upon documents including 
the English translation of the documents which were in Malayalam language. 
Hence, the English translation of the Malayalam representation of the detenu 
and the English translation of the documents relied upon were available before 
the Central Government at the time of consideration of the representation of F 
the detenu. [838-C-D) 
1.4. There are enough materials to show the involvement of the detenu 
in smuggling activities. The State Government (Detaining Authority) have 
considered all the aspects and perused the relevant material documents before 
issuing the detention order. Such detention order was issued based on the G 
subjective satisfaction as to the necessity of detaining the detenu by invoking 
the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act. The detenu, therefore, is not entitled 
to challenge the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining Authority 
in these proceedings. (838-F-GJ 
H 
834 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
1.5. The liberty of the citizen is undoubtedly very important. The duty 
of the Court is to ensure that there is strict compliance with the provisions 
of law. In the instant

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