THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS versus BUYAMAYUM ABDUL HANAN @ ANAND & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 760 · Decided: 19-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
760
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.
v.
BUYAMAYUM ABDUL HANAN @ ANAND & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1819 of 2022)
OCTOBER 19, 2022
[AJAY RASTOGI AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art. 22(5) – Right to make
representation – Preventive Detention – Non-supply of legible copies
of documents relied upon by detaining authority – Denial of
effective representation – Respondent no.1 was subjected to
preventive detention under 1988 Act – High Court set aside the
order of detention passed on the premise that the appellants failed
to supply the legible copies of documents relied upon while passing
the order of detention – On appeal, held: Right to make
representation is a fundamental right of the detenu u/Art. 22(5) –
Supply of illegible copy of documents relied upon by the detaining
authority has deprived the respondent in making an effective
representation and denial thereof will hold the order of detention
illegal – Further, though the respondent failed to question before
the detaining authority that illegible or blurred copies were supplied
to him, but the right to make representation being a fundamental
right, the detenu is always entitled to be supplied with the legible
copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority –
Information made in the grounds of detention enables him to make
an effective representation – No error committed by High Court in
setting aside the order of preventive detention – Prevention of Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.
Constitution of India – Art. 22(5) – Rights conferred under –
Discussed.
Constitution of India – Art. 22(5) – Held: Refusal to supply
the documents requested by the detenu or supply of illegible or
blurred copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining
authority amounts to violation of Art. 22(5) – However, whether an
opportunity has been afforded to make an effective representation
always depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 760
760
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
761
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Article 22(5) of the Constitution confers two
rights on the detenu, firstly, the right to be informed of the grounds
on which the order of detention has been made and, secondly, to
be afforded an earliest opportunity to make a representation
against the order of detention. Right to make a representation
implies that the detenu should have all the information that will
enable him to make an effective representation. No doubt, this
right is again subject to the right or privilege given by clause (6).
At the same time, refusal to supply the documents requested by
the detenu or supply of illegible or blurred copies of the documents
relied upon by the detaining authority amounts to violation of
Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Although it is true that whether
an opportunity has been afforded to make an effective
representation always depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case. [Paras 16, 17][767-F-H; 768-A]
1.2 The right to make representation is a fundamental right
of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and supply
of the illegible copy of documents which has been relied upon by
the detaining authority indeed has deprived him in making an
effective representation and denial thereof will hold the order of
detention illegal and not in accordance with the procedure
contemplated under law. It is the admitted case of the parties
that respondent no.1 has failed to question before the detaining
authority that illegible or blurred copies were supplied to him
which were relied upon while passing the order of detention, but
the right to make representation being a fundamental right under
Article 22(5) of the Constitution in order to make effective
representation, the detenu is always entitled to be supplied with
the legible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining
authority and such information made in the grounds of detention
enables him to make an effective representation. [Paras 21,
22][770-F-H; 771-A-B]
1.3 It was specifically raised by the respondents in their
writ petition and the reference has been made in para 9 of the
petition referred to and in the pleadings on record, there was no
denial in the counter filed by the appellants before the High Court
THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS. v. BUYAMAYUM ABDUL
HANAN @ ANAND & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
that the documents which were s

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