2024 INSC 612 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO . 3082 OF 2024

SHABNA ABDULLA …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order

dated 24

th January 2023 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 596 of 2022,

passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, whereby

the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant, who

is the sister-in-law of the detenue, and thereby upheld the

detention order dated 24

th August, 2021 issued against the

detenue (one Abdul Raoof) under Section 3 of the Conservation

of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,

2

1974 (hereinafter referred to as, “COFEPOSA”) and its

confirmation vide order dated 24

th May, 2022.

2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as

given below.

2.1 On 20

th April, 2021, the unaccompanied baggage of one

Althaf Moosan Mukri was checked and inside the compressor of

a refrigerator amongst the baggage, contraband gold weighing

14,763.30 grams valued at Rs. 7,16,16,768/- was found and

seized.

2.2 Statements of co-accused persons were recorded, whereby

they admitted that the detenue who was residing in Dubai, UAE,

was running a cargo handling and forwarding business and was

scouting passengers who had unaccompanied cargo to be sent to

India. It was stated that the detenue would send contraband gold

concealed in compressors of refrigerators along with

unaccompanied baggage.

2.3 On 24

th August, 2021, detention orders under Section 3 of

COFEPOSA were issued against the three co -accused persons

namely Mohammad Ali (father-in-law of detenue), Abdulla S.S.

(brother-in-law of detenue) and Biju V. Joy (Customs G

3

Cardholder) and they were arrested. They later challenged their

respective detention orders by way of separate Writ Petitions filed

before the High Court of Kerala.

2.4 On 27

th December, 2021, the detenue reached India. He

repeatedly wrote letters/issued reminders to the Director

General (DG), Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (hereinafter,

“CEIB”) as well as the Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA, stating that

he has not received any information of a detention order issued

against him.

2.5 On 5

th March, 2022, the detenue was arrested and he was

served with the detention order dated 24

th August, 2021. He was

supplied the grounds of detention on 7

th March, 2022.

Thereafter, by an order dated 24

th March, 2022, the case of the

detenue was referred by the CEIB to the Advisory Board under

Section 8(b) of COFEPOSA Act.

2.6 On 5

th April, 2022, the detenue wrote letters to the DG,

CEIB and Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA), seeking various

documents that had not been provided to the detenue. He inter-

alia sought audio recordings of the voice messages pertaining to

the WhatsApp conversations relied upon by the Detaining

4

Authority, as was evident from the grounds of detention. The

Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) rejected the request of the detenue,

whereas the DG, CEIB kept the request pending for the Advisory

Board to take an opinion on.

2.7 On 24

th May, 2022, in view of the opinion of the Advisory

Board, the Central Government confirmed the detention order of

the detenue for a period of one year from the date of detention.

2.8 On 3

rd June, 2022, a Division Bench of the High Court by a

common judgement, allowed the three writ petitions filed by the

co-accused persons being W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 107-109 of 2022. The

High Court was of the opinion that documents sought had been

relied upon in the detention orders and the same ought to have

been furnished to the detenus when they requested for the same.

It, accordingly, held that the non-supply had vitally affected the

right of the detenus under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of

India & therefore, the detention order was bad.

2.9 On 29

th June, 2022, the appellant filed a Writ Petition being

W.P. (Crl.) No. 596 of 2022, challenging the detention order dated

24

th August, 2021, as well as the confirmation of detention vide

order dated 24

th May, 2022, by the Central Government on the

5

ground of non-supply of relevant documents and therefore

sought release of the detenue.

2.10 On 24

th January, 2023, a Division Bench of the High Court

(other than the one which adjudicated upon the writ petitions

filed by the co-accused persons), dismissed the Writ Petition filed

by the appellant. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal arises.

3. We have heard Mr. Raghenth Basant, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Nachiketa Joshi,

learned Senior Counsel for the respondent(s).

4. Mr. Raghenth Basant, learned Senior Counsel, submitted

that the Division Bench of the High Court while dismissing the

petition of the present appellant has failed to take into

consideration the judgment and order dated 3

rd June 2022 in the

cases of Nushath Koyamu vs. Union of India and others

1 and

other connected matters delivered by a Coordinate Bench of the

same High Court wherein it was held that the detention of the

co-detenus was vitiated on account of non-supply of WhatsApp

chats. He submits that the grounds of detention, insofar as the

detenue in the present appeal is concerned, are identical with the

1

[2022 (3) KLT 885]

6

grounds of detention with that of the co-detenue Mr. Biju V. Joy

and two other detenus, whose detention was set aside by the

order of the High Court dated 3

rd June 2022. It is, therefore,

submitted that the detention order is liable to be quashed on this

short ground.

5. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the Union of India, submits that the learned Division Bench of

the High Court has rightly distinguished the decision of the

Coordinate Bench of the same High Court in the case s of

Nushath Koyamu (supra) and other connected matters. He,

therefore, submitted that no inference with the impugned

judgment and order is warranted.

6. The material placed on record would reveal that the grounds

of detention insofar as the present detenue and Mr. Biju V. Joy

and other two detenus, whose detention has been held to be

illegal by the judgment and order 3

rd June 2022 passed by the

Coordinate Bench of the same High Court in the cases of

Nushath Koyamu (supra) are almost identical.

7. It will be relevant to refer to the following ground of

detention:

7

“1. Mr. Biju V. Joy, G card holder of M/s The

Mercantile and Marine services was summoned

on 03.08.2021 and his voluntary statement was

recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act,

1962 wherein he, inter alia, reiterated that his

previous statements dated 20 .04.2021 and

28.04.2021 were true and correct. He further

submitted printouts of WhatsApp chats

between him and Mr. Abdul Raoof i.e. you

containing the passport details of passenger Mr.

Althaf Moosan Mukri and details of previous

consignments which were cleared on behalf of

Mr. Abdul Raoof i.e. you; that he signed on the

printouts of same and confirmed that they were

retrieved from his mobile phone.”

8. Undisputedly, the said WhatsApp chats refer to the detenue

in the present appeal as well as said Biju V. Joy.

9. In the cases of Nushath Koyamu (supra) and other

connected matters, the Coordinate Bench of the same High Court

has recorded the submissions of the petitioner(s) therein with

regard to non-supply of the WhatsApp chats. The same reads

thus:

“15. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that in W.P. (Crl) No. 107 of 2022, the

detenue had filed Ext. P12 request for supply of

the documents mentioned therein, particularly,

a screen shot taken from the detenus phone

which was relied upon by the detaining

authority. It is mentioned in Ext. P12 that there

were at least six voice messages visible on the

screen shot which were relied on and those

messages appear to be of 19

th April 2021, a day

8

before the detenus in this case were taken into

custody by the DRI. It is the contention that

from the screen shot, the contents of the

whatsapp chat cannot be understood and

unless the chats in electronic form is provided,

an effective representation cannot be made.

Thus, the whatsapp chat in electronic form

which was to be given on a pen drive or such

other media to facilitate them to hear them and

understand the content and offer the

explanation has been deprived offending the

right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of

India.”

10. On recording of the said submissions, the Coordinate

Division Bench of the same High Court observed thus:

“17. On a consideration of the rival submission

on this aspect, we notice that there has been

reliance made in the detention order regarding

the documents mentioned above which might

have forced the detaining authority to reach the

conclusion about the previous smuggling

activities and which necessitated the present

order of detention. In spite of a specific request,

as seen from Ext. P12 in the above cases, we

find copies were not given. In as much as the

contents of the above being relied upon and they

have not been given despite asking for them, we

feel there has been infraction of the right of the

detenus to make an effective representation

seeking release.

18. The learned counsel for the petitioner is

right in stating that the detaining authority

ought to have furnished the said materials as

their right to make an effective representation

has been impaired. It is relevant to note in the

decision of the Supreme Court in Atma Ram

9

Vaidya v. State of Bombay [AIR 1951 SC 157].

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

Para 10. “To put, it in other words, the detaining

authority has made its decision and passed its

order. The detained person is then given an

opportunity to urge his objections which in

cases of preventive detention comes always at a

later stage. The grounds may have been

considered sufficient by the Government to pass

its judgment. But to enable the detained person

to make his representation against the order,

further details may be furnished to him. In our

opinion, this appears to be the true measure of

the procedural rights of the detained person

under Article 22 (5).”

Para 12. “The conferment of the right to make a

representation necessarily carries with it the

obligation on the part of the detaining authority

to furnish the grounds, i.e., materials on which

the detention order was made. In our opinion, it

is therefore clear that while there is a

connection between the obligation on the part of

the detaining authority to furnish grounds and

the right given to the detained person to have an

earliest opportunity to make the representation,

the test to be applied in respect of the contents

of the grounds for the two purposes is quite

different. As already pointed out, for the first,

the test is whether it is sufficient to satisfy the

authority. For the second, the test is, whether it

is sufficient to enable the detained person to

make the representation at the earliest

opportunity”.

Para 13 “But when grounds which have a

rational connection with the ends mentioned in

section a of the Act are supplied, the first

condition is satisfied. If the grounds are not

10

sufficient to enable the detenue to make a

representation, the detenue can rely on his

second right and if he likes may ask for

particulars which will enable him to make the

representation. On an infringement of either of

these two rights the detained person has a right

to approach the court and complain that there

has been an infringement of his fundamental

right and even if the infringement of the second

part of the right under Article 22 (5) is

established he is bound to be released by the

court”.

19. In the light of the above, we cannot accept

the contention of the learned counsel for the

respondents that there was no duty to supply

the documents mentioned above to the detenus.

The decisions relied on by the learned counsel

for the respondent for the proposition that the

documents sought for in the instant cases need

not be granted cannot be accepted as the same

are rendered on different sets of facts. In as

much as the documents sought has been relied

upon in the detention orders, the same ought to

have been furnished to the detenus when they

requested for the same. The learned counsel for

the petitioners is also right in relying on the

following judgments for canvassing the same

position that the relevant electronic info to be

provided in the same format:

1. 2016 (3) KHC – Reshmi v. Union of

India

2. 2019 KHC 914 – Hajira N.K. v. Union

of India

3. 2020 KHC 167 – Beevikunju v. Union

of India

4. 2021 KHC 303 - Waheeda Ashraf v.

Union of India

11

In the light of the discussion above, we are

convinced that the non -supply has vitally

affected the right of the detnus under Article

22(5) of the Constitution of India. We,

accordingly, hold that the detention order is bad

for the non-supply of these documents sought

for in Ext. P12.”

11. After observing the aforesaid, the Coordinate Division

Bench of the same High Court held that non -supply of the

documents had vitally affected the right of the detenus to make

an effective representation and the detention order came to be

quashed on the said ground.

12. In the present case also, the detenue had sought the copies

of the said WhatsApp chats. However, the Division Bench of the

High Court in the present case, while rejecting the case of the

detenue, observed that the detaining authority had arrived at a

subjective satisfaction on the basis of various documents and

that non-supply of the WhatsApp chats would not vitiate the

detention order. It, therefore, held that the findings of the

Coordinate Bench of the same High Court in the cases of

Nushath Koyamu (supra) and other connected matters in

respect of other detenus could not be followed in the present

case.

12

13. We may gainfully refer to the following observations of this

Court in the case of Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and

others

2:

“90. We are distressed to note that despite

several pronouncements on the subject,

there is substantial increase in the

number of cases involving violation of the

basics of judicial discipline. The learned

Single Judges and Benches of the High

Courts refuse to follow and accept the

verdict and law laid down by coordinate

and even larger Benches by citing minor

difference in the facts as the ground for

doing so. Therefore, it has become

necessary to reiterate that disrespect to

the constitutional ethos and breach of

discipline have grave impact on the

credibility of judicial institution and

encourages chance litigation. It must be

remembered that predictability and

certainty is an important hallmark of

judicial jurisprudence developed in this

country in the last six decades and

increase in the frequency of conflicting

judgments of the superior judiciary will do

incalculable harm to the system inasmuch

as the courts at the grass roots will not be

able to decide as to which of the judgments

lay down the correct law and which one

should be followed.

91. We may add that in our constitutional

set-up every citizen is under a duty to

abide by the Constitution and respect its

ideals and institutions. Those who have

2

(2008) 10 SCC 1

13

been entrusted with the task of

administering the system and operating

various constituents of the State and who

take oath to act in accordance with the

Constitution and uphold the same, have to

set an example by exhibiting total

commitment to the constitutional ideals.

This principle is required to be observed

with greater rigour by the members of

judicial fraternity who have been bestowed

with the power to adjudicate upon

important constitutional and legal issues

and protect and preserve rights of the

individuals and society as a whole.

Discipline is sine qua non for effective and

efficient functioning of the judicial system.

If the courts command others to act in

accordance with the provisions of the

Constitution and rule of law, it is not

possible to countenance violation of the

constitutional principle by those who are

required to lay down the law.”

14. The aforesaid observations of this Court aptly apply to the

facts of the present case.

15. When the Coordinate Bench of the same High Court based

on same grounds of detention and on the basis of the same

material, which was relied on by the detaining authority, had

come to a considered conclusion that non -supply of certain

documents had vitiated the right to make an effective

representation of the detenus, another Coordinate Bench could

not have ignored the same.

14

16. No doubt that, the second Division Bench has sought to

justify its decision by holding that the findings in the cases of

Nushath Koyamu (supra) and other connected matters would

not be applicable to it since the detaining authority had also

taken into consideration the other material while arriving at its

subjective satisfaction. However, it is to be noted that if that was

so in the case of present detenue, that was also so in the cases

of other detenus.

17. We are of the considered opinion that the Division Bench of

the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order

should have followed the view taken by another Division Bench

of the same High Court specifically when the grounds of

detention and the grounds of challenge were identical in both the

cases. In the event, the Division Bench of the High Court was of

the view that the earlier decision of the Coordinate Bench of the

same High Court was not correct in law, the only option available

to it was to refer the matter to a larger Bench.

18. In that view of the matter, the present appeal deserves to be

allowed on this short ground. We accordingly pass the following

order.

15

(i) The appeal is allowed.

(ii) Order of detention dated 24

th August 2021 passed by the

Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, COFEPOSA Wing

is quashed and set aside.

(iii) Order of confirmation of detention order dated 24

th May

2022 passed by the Central Economic Intelligence

Bureau, COFEPOSA Wing is quashed and set aside.

..............................J

(B.R. GAVAI)

...........................................J

(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA )

...........................................J

(K.V. VISWANATHAN )

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 20, 2024.