LexUNION OF INDIA versus PAUL MANICKAM AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA v. PAUL MANICKAM AND ANR. OCTOBER 13, 2003 B [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Article 22 (5)-Preventive detention- Representation made to President of India instead of authorities mentioned in the detention order- C Habeas Corpus petition filed concealing correct facts about the representation-High Court dismissed petition-Review Petition filed mentioning for first time that representation was actually made to the President-Review Petition allowed quashing the detention order due to inordinate delay in considering the representation-On Appeal Held, D compliance of all requirements and safeguards mandatory even if detention is for a brief period-Preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence-It is an action to prevent apprehended objectionable activities-Authorities receiving representations should deal with them with utmost expedition keeping in view the fact that detention is based on subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned-While E passing detention orders against persons already in jail, authorities to consider that fact and also chances of release on bail-Detenu suffered detention for the whole period of detention-Hence not a fit case for interference-Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention r.,f Smuggling Activities Act, 1974-Section 3 (1) (i)-Customs Act, 1962- F Section 108-Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Article 22 (5)-Representation against preventive detention- Representation was not made to authorities mentioned in the detention order but to the President of India-Held, representation made to the G President of India or the Governor would amount to a representation to the Central Government and the State Government-Although this cannot be allowed to be misused as a smoke screen by an unscrupulous detenu with ulterior motive. Article 226-Habeas Corpus petition-Review Petition filed against H order of dismissal, stating totally different facts-Review Petition allowed- 618 UNION OF INDIA v. PAUL MANICKAM 619 Held, High Court transgressed its jurisdiction in entertaining review A petition with entirely new substratum of issues-High Court ought not to have taken into account factual aspects not disclosed or concealed in writ petition. Articles 226 and 32-Challenge to orders of detention by means of B writ petitions-Unless satisfact01y reasons indicated, filing of such petitions directly under Article 32 ought to be discouraged. A woman was detained under Section 3 (1) (i) the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 C (COFEPOSA) by an order dated 26.4.2000 of the State Government. She had been found in possession of a huge quantity of contraband articles on 26.2.2000. The articles were seized under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign, Trade (Development ·and Regulation) Act, 1992. The order of detention was passed purportedly with an idea of preventing her from carrying out similar activities in D the future. The detenu's father, the respondent, made a representation on her behalf to the President of India on 11.5.2000 and later filed a habeas corpus petition in the High Court on 15.5.2000. The said petition indicated that representations were made to the Government and the Union of India through proper channel. It was also submitted E that there was no material to support the order of detention, relevant documents were not furnished and whatever supplied were illegible, violating the protection guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. The respondents, denied the receipt of any sucli representation and eventually the habeas corpus petition was dismissed. In an application for review, it was for the first time brought on record that F the representation was actually made to the President of India. The High Court took into consideration the long unexplained delay on the part of the Government since the representation was made on 11.5.2000, G irrespective of the fact that it was not made before the authorities where it ought to have been made and quashed the order of detention. Hence this appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court H 620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1. Preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence while criminal proceedings are to punish a person for an offence
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.