20 August 2024 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

On August 24, 2021 in the matter of Shabna Abdulla v/s The Union of India & Others, the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB) issued a detention order under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) against Abdul Raoof. This order, confirmed on May 24, 2022, was challenged by the appellant, the sister-in-law of the detenue, leading to a complex legal battle involving the High Court of Kerala and ultimately, the Supreme Court of India.

Background:

The case revolves around a significant seizure of contraband gold on April 20, 2021, when authorities found gold weighing 14,763.30 grams valued at approximately Rs. 7.16 crore hidden in a refrigerator compressor. Investigations revealed that Abdul Raoof, who resided in Dubai, was allegedly involved in smuggling this gold into India.
The detention order was initially issued against Raoof and his associates, including Mohammad Ali, Abdulla S.S., and Biju V. Joy. Each challenged their detention orders separately, resulting in a notable High Court judgment on June 3, 2022. The court invalidated the detention of the co-accused, citing a failure to provide essential documents and WhatsApp chats used in the detention grounds, thus violating their right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution.

Appellant's Case:

On June 29, 2022, the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the detention order against Abdul Raoof, arguing that the non-supply of documents, particularly WhatsApp conversations, rendered the detention invalid. Despite the High Court's previous ruling on the co-accused, the petition was dismissed on January 24, 2023, by a different Division Bench.

Legal Arguments and Proceedings:

Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Raghenth Basant, argued that the second Division Bench's ruling failed to adhere to the precedent set by the June 3 decision, which had established that the non-supply of documents critical to the detention grounds was a significant procedural flaw. The grounds of detention for Raoof were similar to those used against the co-accused, whose detention was annulled on similar grounds.
Conversely, Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, representing the Union of India, contended that the second Division Bench had correctly differentiated the present case from the co-accused’s cases and that the non-supply of WhatsApp chats did not undermine the detention order's validity in this instance.

Supreme Court's Review:

The Supreme Court of India, in reviewing the appeal, emphasized the need for consistency in judicial decisions, particularly when dealing with identical grounds of detention and procedural issues. The Court noted that the second Division Bench should have followed the earlier decision of the Coordinate Bench or, if it disagreed with that ruling, referred the matter to a larger Bench for clarity.
The Supreme Court found that the failure to supply critical documents, specifically WhatsApp chats, which were relied upon in the detention orders, infringed upon Raoof's right to make an effective representation. This oversight was deemed a serious breach of procedural fairness under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court quashed both the detention order issued on August 24, 2021, and its confirmation on May 24, 2022. The Court's decision underscores the importance of ensuring that all relevant documents and evidence relied upon in detention orders are provided to the detenue to uphold their constitutional rights. This case highlights the need for judicial consistency and the rigorous application of constitutional protections in detention matters.

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974    

Customs Act, 1962