THAHIRA HARIS ETC. versus GOVT. OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 941 · Decided: 15-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

- ,} 
[2009) 5 S.C.R. 941 
~ 
THAHIRA HARIS ETC. 
A 
V. 
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 723-724 of 2009) 
.... 
~ 
APRIL 15, 2009 
B 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 22(5) and (6) -
Preventive detention -
Smuggling of red sanders - c 
Detention order - Non-supply of relied upon documents -
· Detenu allegedly abetted in smuggling - Detention order of 
the mastermind of the alleged offence not supplied to the 
detenu - Held: In the absence of relied upon documents, 
detenu was prevented from making effective representation D 
which violated his constitutional rights - Detention order 
quashed - COFEPOSA - s.8. 
The appellant is wife of detenu. She filed writ 
petitions challenging the order of detention dated 24th E 
May, 2008 on the ground of non-supply of relied upon 
and relevanf documents. High Court dismissed the writ 
petitions. 
-~ 
In appeals to this Court, appellant contended that the 
·" 
detention order of 'AK' was not supplied; that even 
F 
~ 
according to the detaining authority, 'AK' was the master 
mind in the entire operation and allegation against the 
detenu was of abetting him in smuggling therefore order 
of detention passed against 'AK' was of great 
significance. 
G 
-< 
...., 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1. Admittedly, the order of detention of 'AK' 
-; 
941 
H 
942 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R. 
A dated 13.9.2004 was not supplied to the detenu. The 
document mentioned at serial number 90 is the detention 
order dated 13.9.2004 of 'AK', the master mind, whereas 
the document supplied to the detenu was only the 
confirmation order dated 29.1.2005 passed under section 
B 8 of the COFEPOSA Act. Both are different and distinct 
and, therefore, the High Court was wrong in holding that 
the detention order and confirmation order was one and 
the same. The period of detention in such case would be 
reckoned from 13.9.2004 and not from 29.1.2005. [Para 7] 
C [946-C-D] 
D 
2. According to the detaining authority, copy of the 
detention order issued under COFEPOSA is a relied upon 
document. This document was admittedly not supplied 
to the detenu. [Para 9) [946-G-H] 
3.1. Indian Constitution provides adequate 
safeguards under clauses (5) and (6) of Article 22 to the 
detenu who has been detained in pursuance of the order 
made under any law providing for preventive detention. 
E He has right to be supplied copies of all documents, 
statements and other materials relied upon in the ground 
of detention without any delay. The predominant object 
of communicating the grounds of detention is to enable 
the detenu at the earliest opportunity to make effective 
F and meaningful representation against his detention. 
[Para 28) [955-C-D] 
Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj v. The State of Delhi and Ors. 
1953 SCR 708; Shalini Sonio (Smt.) & Others v. Union of 
India and Others (1980) 4 SCC 544; lcchu Devi Choraria 
G (Smt.) v. Union of India & Others (1980) 4 SCC 531; Khudiram 
Das v. State of West Bengal & 
Others (4975) 2 SCC 81; 
l 
-
... 
Vakil Singh v. State of J & K & Another (1975) 3 SCC 545; 
"' • 
Ganga Ramchand Bharvani v. Under Secretary to the 
Government of Maharashtra & Others (1980) 4 SCC 624; S. 
H Gurdip Singh v~ Union of India & Others (1981) 1 SCC 419; 
·-J 
{ 
_., 
THAHIRA HARIS ETC. v. GOVT. OF KARNATAKA & 943 
ORS. 
Go/am alias Go/am Mallick v. State of West Bengal (1975) 2 A 
SCC 4; Mohd. Ala, v. State of West Bengal (1974) 4 SCC 
463; Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya v. Union of India & 
Others (1981) 2 SCC 436; Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union 
of India & Others (1980) 2 SCC 270; Tushar Thakker (Shri) 
v. Union of India & Others (1980) 4 SCC 499; Ram Baochan B 
Dubey v. State of Maharashtra and Another (1982) 3 SCC 
. 383; Sophia Gu/am Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra & 
Others (1999) 6 SCC 593 and District Collector, Ananthapur 
& Another v. V. Laxmanna (2005) 3 SCC 663, relied on. 
3.2. On proper construction of clause (5) of Article 22 C 
read with section 3(3) of COFEPOSA Act, it is imperative 
for valid continuance of detention that the detenu must 
be supplied all documents, statements and other 
materials relied upon in the grounds of detention. In the 
instant case, admittedly, the relied upon document, the D 
detention order of 'AK' was not supplied to the detenu 
and the detenu was prevented from making effective 
representation which has violated his constitutional right 
under clause (5) of Ar

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