SARFARAZ ALAM versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 267 · Decided: 04-01-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. SUNDRESH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 267 : 2024 INSC 18
Sarfaraz Alam
v.
Union of India & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2024)
04 January 2024
[M. M. Sundresh* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Validity of the detention order passed by the respondents; Detenue’s 
right to make a representation, the communication regarding the 
same if to be made both orally and in writing.
Headnotes
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of 
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – Constitution of India – Article 
22(5) – Detention order – Validity – Detenue’s right of making 
a representation – Communication thereof if to be made both 
orally and in writing – Appellant inter alia pleaded that the 
detenue was not informed/communicated regarding his right 
to make a representation against the detention order:
Held: The first part of Article 22(5) involves the bounden duty 
and obligation on the part of the authorities in not only serving 
the grounds of detention as soon as the case may be, after due 
service of the detention order and communication of the grounds 
of detention along with the documents relied upon in the language 
which he understands, but also for the purpose of affording him 
the earliest opportunity of making a representation questioning 
the detention order – The second part is with respect to his right 
of making the representation – For exercising such a right, a 
detenue has to necessarily have adequate knowledge of the very 
basis of detention order – A detenue has to be informed that he 
has a right to make a representation – Such a communication 
of his right can either be oral or in writing – In a case where a 
detenue is not in a position to understand the language, a mere 
verbal explanation would not suffice – However, in a case where 
a detenue receives the ground of detention in the language known 
to him which contains a clear statement over his right to make 
268
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
a representation, there is no need for informing verbally once 
again – Such an exercise, however, would be required when the 
grounds of detention do not indicate so – In the present case, the 
grounds of detention forming the basis of the satisfaction of the 
detaining authority were made known to the detenue and were 
attempted to be served at the earliest point of time i.e., on the very 
next day after his detention – No error in the procedure adopted 
by the respondents as due compliance was made to translate all 
documents in Bengali apart from persuading the detenue to receive 
them – In addition, the panchnama was signed by the independent 
witnesses – The detenue also read the grounds of detention and 
the relevant documents and therefore was well aware of his right 
to make a representation – The detenue is not entitled to any 
relief as he not only suppressed the facts as proved in his refusal 
to receive the grounds of detention, apart from reading them in 
detail, but also approached the Court with unclean hands – It is a 
deliberate ploy adopted by the detenue to secure favourable orders 
from the Court – A perusal of the panchnama clearly indicates the 
adequacy of his knowledge in English, as he has not only signed 
the document in English but also made his objection with respect 
to receipt of the grounds of detention – No ground to interfere 
with the impugned order passed by the High Court. [Paras 10-12, 
14, 16 and 19]
Constitution of India – Article 22(5) – Duty and obligation on 
the part of the authorities – Right of the detenue of making 
the representation – Difference between the background facts 
leading to detention order and the grounds of detention – 
Discussed.
Case Law Cited
Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, [1981] 2 SCR 
352: (1981) 2 SCC 427; State of Bombay v. Atma Ram 
Shridhar Vaidya, [1951] SCR 167: AIR 1951 SC 157; 
Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra [1962] Suppl. SCR 
918: AIR 1962 SC 911 – relied on.
State Legal Aid Committee, J&K v. State of J&K, [2004] 
5 Suppl. SCR 1090: (2005) 9 SCC 667; Kamleshkumar 
Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India [1995] 3 SCR 279: 
(1995) 4 SCC 51; Thahira Haris v. Govt. of Karnataka 
[2009] 5 SCR 941: (2009) 11 SCC 438 – referred to.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
269
Sarfaraz Alam V. Union of India & Ors.
List of Acts 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Detention order; Grounds of detention; Refusal to receive grounds 
of detention; Commun

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