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

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

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

                                                        

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).            OF 2022

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2420 of 2022)

THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.           ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

BUYAMAYUM ABDUL HANAN 

@ ANAND & ANR.          ….RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).            OF 2022

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2603 of 2022)

J U D G M E N T

Rastogi, J.

    

1. Leave granted. 

1

2. The instant appeals are directed against the decision of

the High Court of Manipur dated 28th October, 2021 and 16th

September, 2021 setting aside the order of detention passed

under   Prevention   of   Illicit   Traffic   in   Narcotic   Drugs   and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as

“the Act 1988”) on the premise that the appellants failed to

supply the legible copies of documents which were relied upon

by the appellants while passing the order of detention under

the provisions of the Act 1988.

3. Respondent   no.   1,   in   both   the   appeals,   was   released

pursuant to the order impugned dated 28th October, 2021

passed by the High Court and the period of detention of one

year also expired.

4.   Notice was issued by this Court on 18th April, 2022, but

no one appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1 despite service

of notice.

5. On the last date of hearing, i.e., 1st September 2022, this

Court requested Ms. Prerna Singh, learned Advocate to appear

2

as  Amicus Curiae  on behalf of respondent no.1 in both the

appeals   which   she   voluntarily   accepted   and   assisted   the

Court.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, Ms.

Prerna Singh, Amicus Curiae on behalf of the respondent no. 1

in both the appeals as well as learned counsel for respondent

no.   2   and   with   their   assistance   perused   the   material   on

record.

7. The challenge in the writ petition originally filed on behalf

of respondent no.1 was the order of detention dated 17th May,

2021   and   the   grounds   of   detention   dated   22nd  May,   2021

passed   by   the   Special   Secretary   (Home),   Government   of

Manipur,   whereby   respondent   no.1   was   subjected   to

preventive detention under the provisions of the Act 1988.   

8. The main thrust on which the writ petition was filed

under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the order of

detention was that respondent no.1 was not supplied with

legible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining

3

authority while passing the order of detention and that has

taken away the valuable right of respondent no.1 in making an

effective representation.  The right to make a representation is

a fundamental right and non­supply of the legible copies of the

documents relied upon by the authorities in passing the order

of detention is in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution

and placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in  Smt.

Dharmista   Bhagat   v.   State   of   Karnataka   &   Another1

,

Manjit   Singh  Grewal  @  Gogi   v.  Union   of   India  &  Ors.2

,

Mehrunissa   v.   State   of   Maharashtra3

  and  Bhupinder

Singh v. Union of India & Others4

.   

9. The Division Bench of the High Court placed reliance on

the aforesaid judgments of this Court and set aside the order

of   detention   dated   17th  May,   2021   passed   by   the   Special

Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur.

10. Respondent no.1 in his writ petition, para 9 and ground

(e) in particular, has stated that the documents which formed

1 1989 Supp (2) SCC 155

2 1990 (Supp.) SCC 59

3 (1981) 2 SCC 709

4 (1987) 2 SCC 234

4

the basis of the grounds of detention at pages 31, 33, 35, 37,

38 are illegible and all blurred and not readable and as such

respondent no.1 could not make an effective representation

before the detaining authority and enclosed the grounds of

detention dated 22nd May, 2021 along with the petition.   Para

9 of the writ petition and ground (e) are extracted hereinbelow:

“9.       That,   it   is   pertinent   to   mention   herein   that   the

documents   which   form   the   basis   of   the   grounds   of

detention   at   page   no.31,   33,   35,   37,   38   enclosed

herewith are all blurred and not readable and as such

the detenu could not make an effective representation

before the detaining authority, therefore, the impugned

order and subsequent orders are liable to be set aside.

The   blurred   and   unreadable   original   documents

furnished to the detenu while he was under detention

have been filed along with the writ petition.  A true copy

of the documents which are not readable enclosed in the

grounds   of   detention   dated   22.05.2021   is   enclosed

herewith and marked as Annexure­A/3.”

“e. For, that the documents which form the

basis   of   the   grounds   of   detention   and

enclosed   herewith   are   not   readable   and

could not make an effective representation

and as such the detention order is liable

to be set aside.”

11. In the counter affidavit filed by the appellants before the

High Court, the only justification tendered was that all the

relevant  documents   relied  upon  by  the   detaining   authority

were supplied to respondent no.1 and he did not make any

5

such request in his representation of the documents relied

upon   by   the   detaining   authority   either   being   blurred   or

illegible at any stage during pendency of the proceedings until

the final order of detention came to be passed by the detaining

authority.      The extract  of relevant para  no.10 of  counter

affidavit is reproduced hereunder:

“10. That, with reference to Para Nos.9 and 15(e) of the Writ

Petition, the deponent begs to submit that all legible

documents   which   form   the   basis   of   the   grounds   of

detention were furnished to the detenu.   Moreover, the

detenu while submitting his representation could have

sought   any   relevant   document   from   the   Detaining

Authority   as   done   in   other   cases.     However,   the

petitioner   did   not   mention   any   such   request   in   his

representation   submitted   to   the   detaining   authority.

Original acknowledgement receipt annexed hereto and

marked as A.”

12. Likewise, in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.15 of 2021 before the

High Court, similar averments were made.  Extracts of para 9

and ground (e) are reproduced hereunder:

“9.       That,   it   is   pertinent   to   mention   herein   that   the

documents   which   form   the   basis   of   the   grounds   of

detention at page nos.79, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 93, 95

enclosed herewith are all blurred and not readable and

even   then   the   respondent   No.1   furnished   incomplete

documents while furnishing the documents of ground of

detention to the petitioner (left behind most of the pages

of documents annexed in ground of detention).   The

petitioner has filed the documents in original before the

6

Hon’ble Court, furnished by the respondent no.1 and as

such   the   detenu   could   not   make   an   effective

representation before the detaining authority, therefore,

the impugned order are liable to be set aside.

  A true copy of the documents which are not

readable enclosed in the grounds of detention dated

22.05.2021   is   enclosed   herewith   and   marked   as

Annexure­A/3.”

“e. For, that the documents which form the

basis   of   the   grounds   of   detention   and

enclosed   herewith   are   not   readable   and

could not make an effective representation

and as such the detention order is liable

to be set aside.”

13. In the counter affidavit filed by the appellants to the

aforesaid writ petition before the High Court, in para 9, the

appellants replied as under:

  “9. That   with   reference   to   Para   No.9   of   the   criminal

petition, it is submitted that while serving grounds of

detention   all   relevant   documents   were   enclosed.

Moreover,   the   detenu   while   submitting   her

representation   done   in   other   cases.     However,   the

petitioner  did   not   mention   any   such   request   in  her

representation   submitted   to   the   detaining   authority.

Annexure   R/4   is   the   true   copy   of   the   Ground   of

detention.”

14. Learned counsel for the appellants has not disputed the

proposition settled by this Court that supply of legible copies

of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority is a

sine qua non  for making an effective representation which is

7

the   fundamental   right   of   detenu   guaranteed   under   Article

22(5)   of   the   Constitution.     The   only   submission   made   by

learned counsel for the appellants is that respondent no.1, at

no stage, raised any objection that the pages of the documents

relied   upon   by   the   detaining   authority   in   the   grounds   of

detention were illegible or blurred which, in any manner, has

denied him the opportunity of making representation and the

objection was raised, for the first time, before the High Court

and not at any stage before the detaining authority.   In the

given facts and circumstances, learned counsel submits that

the interference made by the High Court in setting aside the

order of detention is not legally sustainable and deserves to be

interfered with by this Court.   

15. Learned  Amicus   Curiae  appearing   on   behalf   of

respondent no. 1 supported the order of the High Court and

submitted that once it is settled that the supply of legible

copies of documents relied upon by the detaining authority is

a sine qua non for making an effective representation to be a

part   of   his   fundamental   right   under   Article   22(5)   of   the

8

Constitution and once this specific allegation was made by

respondent no. 1 in the writ petition with facts and particulars

and also the pages which, according to him, were illegible and

blurred and that has deprived respondent no.1 in making an

effective representation, denial thereof was indeed in violation

of Article 22(5) of the Constitution and once the fundamental

right has been infringed, even if it was not raised before the

detaining authority, that will not take away the fundamental

right conferred by law to respondent no.1 in assailing order of

detention as permissible to him under the law and once this

fact remains uncontroverted, no error has been committed by

the High Court in setting aside the order of detention. 

16. 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.   

17. It   is   well   settled   that   right   to   make   a   representation

implies that the detenu should have all the information that

9

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.  

18. What will be the effect when the detune is deprived of

effective   representation   or   denial   of   supply   of   relied   upon

documents by the detaining authority has been considered by

this Court in Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union of India and

Others5

 as under:

“6. The  right  to make  a  representation is  a  fundamental

right. The representation thus made should be considered

expeditiously   by   the   government.   In   order   to   make   an

effective   representation,   the   detenu   is   entitled   to   obtain

information relating to the grounds of detention. When the

grounds of detention are served on the detenu, he is entitled

to ask for copies of the statements and documents referred

to in the grounds of detention to enable him to make an

effective representation. When the detenu makes a request

5 (1980) 2 SCC 270

10

for   such   documents,   they   should   be   supplied   to   him

expeditiously.   The   detaining   authority   in   preparing   the

grounds   would   have   referred   to   the   statements   and

documents relied on in the grounds of detention and would

be   ordinarily   available   with   him   —   when   copies   of   such

documents   are   asked   for   by   the   detenu   the   detaining

authority   should   be   in   a   position   to   supply   them   with

reasonable   expedition.   What   is   reasonable   expedition   will

depend on the facts of each case.”

19. What will be the effect of non­supply of legible copies of

the  documents relied upon  by  the  detaining authority has

been considered by this Court in Bhupinder Singh (supra) as

under:

“1. On 3­10­1985 the officers of the Enforcement Directorate

searched House No. B.20, Gujranwala Town, Part II, Delhi

and   recovered   certain   quantity   of   foreign   exchange.   It

appears that the petitioner was not immediately available.

He was called and interrogated. He made a statement which

was recorded by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate.

On 19­3­1986 an order for detention of the petitioner was

made by Shri M.L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the

Government  of  India, Ministry of  Finance,  Department  of

Revenue, New Delhi. The petitioner was arrested on 16­4­

1986   and   served   with   a   copy   of   the   order   of   detention.

Grounds of detention were served on him four days later. On

12­5­1986 he was produced before the Advisory Board. He

made a complaint before the Advisory Board that the copies

of documents which were supplied to him along with the

grounds of detention were not legible and he also placed

before the Advisory Board a copy of a representation said to

have   been   made   by   him   for   supply   of   legible   copies   of

documents.   There   is   a   controversy   whether   this

representation was made on 8­5­1986 or 12­5­1986. From

the   original   files   produced   before   us   we   find   that   the

representation was typed on 8­5­1986, but actually signed

by the detenu on 12­5­1986. But that would not make any

difference for the purposes of this case. On 19­5­1986 the

11

Under­Secretary to the Government of India conceded the

demand of the detenu for legible copies of documents and

directed the Directorate of Enforcement to supply a duplicate

set of documents to the petitioner. A copy of this letter was

also sent to the detenu and was acknowledged by him on 21­

5­1986. There is a controversy as regards the date on which

the legible copies of documents were actually given to the

detenu. According to the detenu they were served on him on

1­7­1986, whereas according to the counter­affidavit of Shri

S.K. Chowdhry, Under­Secretary in the Ministry of Finance,

the   documents   were   supplied   on   21­6­1986.   It   does   not

make any difference whether the documents were supplied

on 21­6­1986 or on 1­7­1986 since we find that even before

legible copies of documents were supplied to the detenu, the

detention order was confirmed on 14­6­1986. The detenu

was   thus   clearly   denied   the   opportunity   of   making   a

representation and there was therefore a clear contravention

of the right guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution. The

detenu is entitled to be set at liberty. We are told that the

detenu is now on parole. He need not surrender.”

and later in Manjit Singh Grewal (supra) as under:

“3. It appears that the appellant had asked for certain

copies of the documents which admittedly were there with

the respondent – Union of India.   Copies of the documents

were supplied, but the same were not legible.  This position

is also apparent.  It is not necessary in the facts of this case

to   go   into   the   question   whether   these   documents   were

relevant or material.”

20. Learned  counsel also relied upon the judgment of this

Court in  Union of India v. Ranu Bhandari6 wherein it was

held in paras 27 and 31 as under:

“27. It   has   also   been   the   consistent   view   that   when   a

detention order is passed all the material relied upon by the

detaining   authority   in   making   such   an   order,   must   be

6 (2008) 17 SCC 348

12

supplied to the detenu to enable him to make an effective

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   have   been

recognised   by   this   Court   as   the   minimum   safeguards   to

ensure   that   preventive   detention   laws,   which   are   an   evil

necessity, do not become instruments of oppression in the

hands   of   the   authorities   concerned   or   to   avoid   criminal

proceedings which would entail a proper investigation.

28­30.   xxx xxx xxx

31. Of course, in Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran case [(2000) 9

SCC   170]   it   was   also   made   clear   that   there   is   no   legal

requirement that a copy of every document mentioned in the

order has to be supplied to the detenu. What is, therefore,

imperative is that copies of such documents which had been

relied   upon   by   the   detaining   authority   for   reaching   the

satisfaction that in the interest of the State and its citizens

the preventive detention of the detenu is necessary, have to

be supplied to him. Furthermore, if in this case, the detenu's

representation and writ petition had been placed before the

detaining authority, which according to the detenu contained

his entire defence to the allegations made against him, the

same may have weighed with the detaining authority as to

the necessity of issuing the order of detention at all.”

21. Thus, the legal position has been settled by this Court

that 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

13

order   of   detention   illegal   and   not   in   accordance   with   the

procedure contemplated under law. 

22. 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.

23. Proceeding on the principles which have now been settled

by this Court, 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(supra)   and   in   the   pleadings   on

record,   there   was   no   denial   in   the   counter   filed   by   the

appellants before the High Court that the documents which

were supplied and relied upon by the detaining authority were

14

legible and that has not denied respondent no.1 in making

effective   representation   while   questioning   the   order   of

detention and once this fact remain uncontroverted from the

records as being placed before the High Court in writ petition

filed   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   and   the   legal

principles   being   settled,   we   find   no   substance   in   the

submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants that

merely   because   respondent   no.1   has   failed   to   raise   this

question before the detaining authority which go into root of

the   matter   to   take   away   the   right   vested   in   the

appellant/detenu   in   assailing   the   order   of   detention   while

availing the remedy available to him under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.   

24. In   other   words,   the   right   of   personal   liberty   and

individual freedom which is probably the most cherished is

not, in any manner, arbitrarily to be taken away from him

even temporarily without following the procedure prescribed

by law and once the detenu was able to satisfy while assailing

the order of detention before the High Court in exercise of

15

jurisdiction Article 226 of the Constitution holding that the

grounds of detention did not satisfy the rigors of proof as a

foundational effect which has enabled him in making effective

representation in assailing the order of detention in view of the

protection provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, the

same renders the order of detention illegal and we find no

error being committed by the High Court in setting aside the

order of preventive detention under the impugned judgment.  

25. Consequently, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. 

26. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

……………………………J.

(AJAY RASTOGI)

…………………………….J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)

NEW DELHI

OCTOBER 19, 2022.

16