UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus DILJEET SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 831 · Decided: 23-02-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.~· .... ,. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
DIUEET SINGH AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 23, 1999 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.S.M. QUADRI, JJ.) 
Criminal Law : 
Conservation of Foreign &change and Prevention of Smuggling Ac-
tivities Act, 1974: Sections 3(2) and II. 
A 
B 
c 
Preventive Detention-State Government's report under S. 3(2)-Con-
sideration of-Competent authority for-Held: Joint Secretary (Revenue) is 
competent to consider such report under statutory Notification No. 
685/141184-Cus VIII dated 26.4.1991-Subsequent non-statutory executive 
order dated 25.7.1996 cannot supersede the earlier 1991 statutory notifica-
D 
tion-Transaction of Business Rules, 1991, R. 3-Government of India, 
Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Notification No. 685/14/184-
Cus dated 26.4.1991. 
State Government's report-Consideration of-By Central Government 
or a competent authorit)-Held : Not part of the safeguards embodied under E 
Art. 22(5)---/t is a statutory requirement, which is in addition to the obligation 
under Art. 22(5)-Non-cpmpliance of the statutory requirement would vitiate 
the continued detention of a person detained under the Act-Constitution of 
India, 1950, Art. 22(5). 
Administrative Law,: 
/ 
Subordinate legislation-Statutory notification-Status of-Held : 
/ 
Statutory notification cannot be superseded by non- statutory executive 
order-However, statutory notification can supersede a non-statutory notifica-
tion/order. 
The respondent was detained under Section 3(2) of the Conservation 
F 
G 
of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The 
High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the aforesaid detention 
order on the grounds that the report sent up by the State Government 
under Section 3(2) of the COFEPOSA Act was considered by the Joint· H 
831 
832 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A Secretary (Revenue) who was not the competent authority under the 
. .A, 
Central Government notification dated 25. 7 .1996 which superseded the 
earlier Central Government notification No. 685/14/84-Cus. VIII dated 
26.4.1991; that it was considered by the Secretary (Revenue) after six 
months along with the representation and, therefore, the 'safeguards 
B proYided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution had been violated. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The order dated 25.7.1996 is not a statutory order whereas 
the notification No. 685/14/84-Cus. VIII dated 26.4.1991 is a statutory 
C notification issued under Rule 3 of the Transaction of Business Rules, 
1991. It is true that where a subsequent order does not specifically super-
sede an earlier order but if both the orders relate to the same subject and 
are issued in exercise of the same power, statutory or otherwise, not-
withstanding absence of specific words superseding earlier orders in the 
subsequent order, it can be inferred that the earlier notification has been 
D impliedly superseded. But where the earlier order is a statutory notifica-
tion and the subsequent order is not a statutory notification/order but is 
merely an executive order such an inference cannot be drawn as a non-
statutory order cannot replace a statutory notification even if it purports 
to do so specifically, though a statutory notification can substitute a 
E non-statutory notification/order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 1996 
order supersedes the 1991 notification. It thus follows that the Joint 
Secretary in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Govern-
ment of India was competent to exercise the powers of the Central Govern-
ment under various provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange 
and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. [834-E-H] 
F 
Rosana Begum v. State of Tamil Nadu, H.C. Petition No. 775 of (1997) 
(Mad), approved. 
D. Rana v. Union of India, Cri WP No. 17 of (1997) dated 15.9.1997 
G (Del.) and Li Galina v. Union of India, (1998) 1 JCC 6 (Del), overruled. 
2. The safeguards for the detenu embodied in Article 22(5) are 
two-fold. The authority making the order of detention shall, as soon as 
may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has 
been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a 
H representation against the order. From this analysis of the clause, it 
>-
, . 
., 
... 
U.O.I. v. DIUEETSINGH [QUADRl,J.] 
833 
appears that consideration of the report of the State Government by the A 
Central Government is not part of the safeguards embodied under Article
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.