- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
P.U Abdul Rahiman v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 525 of 1989, which dismissed the appellant’s writ petition challenging (i) an order of detention dated February 13, 1989 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, and (ii) a declaration dated April 17, 1989 under Section 10(1) of the same Act. A review petition (Cri. Misc. Petition No. 68 of 1990) filed by the appellant against the High Court judgment was also dismissed.
Prior to the detention, the appellant had been arrested on June 4, 1988 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He applied for bail before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasargod on June 9, 1988 (rejected), and then before the District Sessions Judge, Kasargod (C.M.P. No. 104 of 1988) on June 10, 1988, where bail was granted on June 17, 1988 subject to conditions. In both bail applications, the appellant stated that he had retracted from an earlier statement; the co-accused had also retracted his statement.
Pursuant to the detention order dated February 13, 1989, the appellant was arrested and detained on March 3, 1989. The grounds of detention specifically referred to the bail application rejected by the Magistrate and to the subsequent grant of bail by the Sessions Court. The appellant contended that important documents relied upon by the detaining authority had not been supplied to him.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether non-supply of the two judicial orders concerning the appellant’s bail (rejection by the Magistrate and grant by the Sessions Court), referred to in the grounds of detention, denied the appellant an effective opportunity to make a representation and thereby violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The grounds of detention made a specific reference to the bail rejection order and the subsequent bail grant, indicating that these were vital facts and that reliance was placed on the two judicial orders.
- Had the documents relating to those orders been supplied, the appellant could have made an effective representation explaining the circumstances surrounding the bail orders, including that bail was granted in light of his retraction from an earlier statement.
- The failure to provide these relevant documents while he was in custody denied him an effective opportunity to represent against detention and resulted in failure of justice.
- The case was asserted to be squarely covered by M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India (1990) 2 SCC 1, which treated bail application and bail order as “vital materials” that must be supplied if relied upon for detention.
Respondents' Arguments
- Reliance was placed on Abdul Sattar Abdul Kadar Shaikh v. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 480, where this Court rejected a complaint of non-supply of documents on the ground that the requested documents were irrelevant to the detention and no reliance had been placed on them by the detaining authority.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India (1990) 2 SCC 1 | Bail application and bail order can be “vital materials”; if considered or relied upon by the detaining authority, they must be supplied with grounds of detention, failing which it amounts to denial of the right to make an effective representation and violates Article 22(5), rendering continued detention illegal. | The Court held the present case was squarely covered by this decision because the grounds of detention referred to the bail rejection and bail grant, making those judicial orders material that ought to have been supplied to enable an effective representation. |
| Abdul Sattar Abdul Kadar Shaikh v. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 480 | Non-supply of documents does not vitiate detention where the documents sought are irrelevant and no reliance is placed on them by the detaining authority. | The Court held this principle had no relevance to the present case, treating it as distinguishable because the missing bail-related documents here were connected to the grounds of detention and thus not “irrelevant documents.” |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the grounds of detention contained a specific reference to the appellant’s bail application that was rejected by the Judicial First Class Magistrate and to the subsequent grant of bail by the Sessions Court. The appellant’s case was that these references showed reliance on those judicial orders, and that without being supplied those documents he could not effectively explain the circumstances surrounding the bail orders—particularly that he had retracted from his earlier statement, which, according to him, was relevant to the Sessions Court granting bail.
The Court accepted the applicability of the principle articulated in M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India (1990) 2 SCC 1: where bail application and bail order are vital materials for consideration and are considered/relied upon by the detaining authority, they ought to be supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention, failing which the detenu’s right to make an effective representation is denied, amounting to a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution and rendering the continued detention illegal.
Addressing the respondents’ reliance on Abdul Sattar Abdul Kadar Shaikh v. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 480, the Court held that the principle concerning refusal of irrelevant documents had no application to the present facts. The Court concluded that the case was squarely covered by M. Ahamedkutty rather than Abdul Sattar.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED: The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court judgment under appeal and also set aside the impugned order of detention dated February 13, 1989 and the declaration dated April 17, 1989.
Direct consequence: The detenu was directed to be released at once. No costs were awarded. The opinion applies existing principles (particularly from M. Ahamedkutty) to the facts; it does not state that it is laying down any new precedent beyond that application.
Order
1. Special leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 525 of 1989 dismissing the appellant's writ petition challenging the order of his detention dated February 13, 1989 made under Section 3(1) and declaration dated April 17, 1989 made under Section 10(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The appellant contends that certain important documents relied upon by the detaining authority had not been supplied to him.
3. The appellant had filed a review petition against the aforesaid judgment which was numbered as Cri. Misc. Petition No. 68 of 1990, but the same was also dismissed.
4. The appellant had been arrested on June 4, 1988 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. On June 9, 1988 he had moved an application before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasargod for bail. That application was rejected. On June 10, 1988 the appellant moved an application for bail, as C.M.P No. 104 of 1988, before the District Sessions Judge, Kasargod. On June 17, 1988 the appellant was released on bail subject to certain conditions. In the two applications for bail the appellant had specifically stated that he had retracted from the statement made by him. The co-accused, who had also made a statement, had retracted from his statement.
5. On March 3, 1989 the appellant was, pursuant to order dated February 13, 1989 arrested and detained. In the grounds of detention there is a specific reference to the appellant's application for bail which was rejected by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, and to the subsequent grant of bail by the Sessions Court.
6. Counsel for the appellant submits that reference to this vital fact, as a ground of detention, shows that reliance had been placed on the two judicial orders. If the documents relating to those two orders had been given to the appellant, he could have lodged an effective representation explaining the circumstances relevant to those two orders. He could have highlighted that it was in the light of the fact that he had retracted from his earlier statement that he was ordered by the District Judge to be released on bail. The denial of an effective opportunity by not giving him the relevant documents, while he was in custody, has resulted in failure of justice.
7. Counsel refers to the principle stated by one of us (K.N Saikia, J.) in the case of M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India (1990) 2 SCC 1 and submits that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by that decision. In paragraph 27 of that judgment, this Court after summarising the relevant decisions on the point stated:
“Considering the facts in the instant case, the bail application and the bail order were vital materials for consideration. If those were not considered the satisfaction of the detaining authority itself would have been impaired, and if those had been considered, they would be documents relied on by the detaining authority though not specifically mentioned in the annexure to the order of detention and those ought to have formed part of the documents supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention and without them the grounds themselves could not be said to have been complete. We have, therefore, no alternative but to hold that it amounted to denial of the detenu's right to make an effective representation and that it resulted in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India rendering the continued detention of detenu illegal and entitling the detenu to be set at liberty in this case.”
8. Counsel for the respondents relies upon another decision of this Court in Abdul Sattar Abdul Kadar Shaikh v. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 480. In that case, the detenu, after unsuccessfully making two earlier attempts, again contended that certain documents which he had asked for were not given to him and, therefore, there was failure of justice. Rejecting that contention, this Court stated that the documents he had asked for had no relevance to his detention and no injustice had been done to him by refusing to give him those documents on which no reliance whatsoever was placed by the detaining authority.
9. The principle stated by this Court in Abdul Sattar Abdul Kadar Shaikh v. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 480 with regard to the irrelevant documents sought by the detenu, has no relevance to a case such as this, the facts of which are squarely covered by the decision in M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India (1990) 2 SCC 1.
10. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment under appeal and the impugned orders of detention and declaration. The detenu shall be released at once.
11. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
Alert