UNION OF INDIA versus RANU BHANDARI

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 582 · Decided: 16-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 582 
~. 
A 
UNION OF INDIA 
V. 
RANU BHANDARI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1468 of 2008) 
B 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
Preventive Detention - Non-supply of documents - Chai-
lenge to - Quashing of detention order by High Court - Inter-
c ference with - Held: While issuing detention order the Detain-
ing Authority must be provided with all the materials available 
against the individual and in his favour - When detention or-
der is passed, detenu is to be supplied with all material relied 
upon by Detaining Authority in issuing detention order to make 
D effective representation against the order - On facts, vital 
documents having direct bearing on detention order not placed 
~· ' 
before Detaining Authority including the Order which absolved 
detenu from criminal proceedings -
On account thereof, 
detenu prevented from making effective representation against 
E 
detention order - Thus, order of High Court does not call for 
interference - Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Pre-
vention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - s. 3(1). 
Respondent's husband obtained Export Promotion 
Capital Goods Scheme licences as service provider for 
F the Companies floated by him. He imported vehicles at 
~- •
concessional rate for personal use. He did not use them 
for tourists purposes as declared for obtaining E.P.C.G. 
licences. The Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate did 
not relate to his earnings from use of imported cars. The 
G said activities amounted to smuggling, and as such the 
respondent's husband was issued detention order u/s. 
d
3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Pre-
• 
vention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 to prevent smug-
~ .. 
gling of goods in future. Respondent filed a Habeas Cor-
H 
582 
UNION OF INDIA v. RANU BHANDARI 
583 
r --+ 
pus petition challenging the detention order on the ground A 
that the non-supply of various documents considered by 
the Detaining Authority while issuing the detention order, 
preveRted the detenu from making the effective represen-
tation to the detention order. High Court allowed the writ 
).. 
petition and quashed the detention order. Hence the B 
-I 
present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Since the personal liberty and individual 
freedom of a citizen is curtailed by an order of preventive c 
detention, the Detaining Authorities must apply their 
minds carefully and exercise great caution in passing 
such an order upon being fully satisfied. from materials 
which are both for and against the detenu that such an 
order is required to be passed in the interest of the State D 
~~ 
and for the public good. [Para 32] [595,GH] 
1.2 While issuing an order of detention, the Detain-
ing Authority must be provided with all the materials avail-
able against the individual concerned, both against him 
and in his favour, to enable it to reach a just conclusion E 
that the detention of such individual is necessary in the 
interest of the State and the general public. When a de-
tention order is passed all the material relied upon by the 
Detaining Authority in making such an order, must be · 
,-" 
supplied to the detenu to enable him to make an effective 
F 
representation against the detention order in compliance 
with Article 22(5) of the Constitution, irrespective of 
whether he had knowledge of the same or not. These 
I 
have been recognized as the minimum safeguards to 
ensure that preventive detention laws, which are an evil G 
necessity, do not become instruments of oppression in 
the hands of the concerned authorities or to avoid crimi-
. -.( 
nal proceedings which would entail a proper investiga-
tion. [Para 25] [593 E-H] 
2.1 In the instant case, it is accepted that notwith-
H 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
+- ' 
A standing the nature of the allegations made, he was en-
titled to the assurance that at the time when the detention 
order was passed all the materials, both for and against 
him, had been placed for the consideration of the Detain-
ing Authority and had been considered by it before the 
.(_ 
B detention order was passed, having particular regard to 
the orders passed by the Settlement Commission ap-
pointed under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, 
which absolved the detenu from all criminal prosecution. 
Furthermore, if the detenu's representation and writ peti-
c tion had been placed before the detaining Authority, which 
according to the detenue contained

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