UMMU SABEENA versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 13 S.C.R. 185 · Decided: 17-11-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 185 
UMMU SABEENA 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2136 of 2011) 
NOVEMBER 17, 2011 
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND JAGDISH SINGH 
KHEHAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of 
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) - s.3 - Order C 
of detention under - Representation made by detenus -
Central Government took two months to dispose of the 
detention representation - Held: Orders of detention quashed 
on the ground of delay on the part of the Central Government 
in disposing of the representation of the detenus -
D 
Expression 'as soon as may be' in sub-clause (5) of Article 
22 of the Constitution sufficiently makes clear the concern of 
the framers of the Constitution that the representation should 
be very expeditiously considered and disposed of with a 
sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay -
E 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 22(5). 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writs - Writ of 
Habeas Corpus -Technical objection of respondents on 
question of prayer in the Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the 
F 
appel/ants-detenus - Held: In dealing with writs of Habeas 
Corpus, such technical objections cannot be entertained -
The writ of Habeas Corpus is the oldest writ evolved by the 
Common Law of England to protect the individual liberty 
against its invasion in the hands of the Executive or may be 
a/so at the instance of private persons - This principle of G 
Habeas· Corpus has been incorporated in the Indian 
Constitutional law - The writ of Habeas Corpus is a writ of the 
highest Constitutional importance being a remedy available 
to the lowliest citizen against the most powerful authority - In 
185 
H 
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R 
A the instant case, if the technical objection made by the 
respondent in this proceeding is upheld and the matter is sent 
back to the High Court for re-agitation of this question, the 
same would deprive the detenus of their precious liberty, which 
has been invaded in view of the manner in which their 
B representations were unduly kept pending - Such technical 
objection accordingly over-ruled. 
An order of detention under Section 3 of the 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of 
C Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) was served 
on the appellants-detenus on 10th March, 2011 who filed 
writ petitions before the High Court for issuance of writs 
of Habeas Corpus. 
Representations made by the detenus on the 30th 
D March, 2011 were rejected by the State Government on 
8th April, 2011 and thereafter forwarded to the Central 
Government. The Central Government took time till 6th 
June, 2011 to reject the same. This oelay on the part of 
the Central Government in the rejection of the detention 
E representation was questioned and the detention of the 
appellants was assailed on the ground that the 
representations filed on their behalf were not disposed 
of in accordance with the mandate of Article 22(5) of the 
Constitution. 
F 
G 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
present appeal was whether the manner of consideration 
and rejection of detention representation by the Central 
Government was in accord with the principles laid down 
by this Court on this aspect in several earlier cases. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the Constitution Bench decision of this 
Court in the case of Abdulla Kunhi*, the Court, after 
H noting the Constitutional provisions under sub-clauses 
UMMU SABEENA v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. 
187 
(4) and (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution, held that A 
neither under the Constitution nor under the relevant 
statutory provision, any time limit has been fixed for 
consideration of representation made by a detenu. The 
time limit, according to the Constitution Bench, has been 
deliberately kept elastic. But the Constitution Bench laid 
B 
emphasis on the expression 'as soon as may be' in sub· 
Clause (5) of Article 22 and held that the said expression 
sufficiently makes clear the concern of the framers of the 
Constitution that the representation should be very 
expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense c 
of urgency and without any avoidable delay. Considering 
the aforesaid provision, the Constitution Bench held that 
"there should not be any supine indifference, slackness 
or callous attitude in considering the representation. Any 
unexplained delay in the disposal of representation 
0 
would b

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