Each day's delay matters in cases of detention, says SC, orders forthwith release of detenu

New Delhi: Authorities have a constitutional obligation to decide expeditiously representations in cases pertaining to the citizens' "personal liberty" and even a day's delay matters in such a case, the Supreme Court said on Thursday.

A bench headed by Justice B R Gavai quashed orders directing and confirming the detention of one Appisseril Kochu Mohammed Shaji.

The apex court had, in its July 31 order, directed the forthwith release of the detenu. It gave its reasons for the same in a detailed verdict delivered on Thursday.

Shaji was detained pursuant to an order issued on August 31 last year under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), 1974.

The bench, also comprising Justices P K Mishra and K V Viswanathan, noted that there was a delay of around nine months in deciding a representation made by the detenu.

"In the matters pertaining to the personal liberty of the citizens, the authorities are enjoined with a constitutional obligation to decide the representations with utmost expedition. Each day's delay matters in such a case," the bench said in its 60-page verdict.

"In the present matter, we find that on account of a casual, callous and negligent approach of the prison authorities, the representation of the detenu could not reach the detaining authority and the central government within a reasonable period. There has been about nine months' delay in deciding the representation," it said.

The bench delivered its verdict on an appeal filed by the detenu's wife, challenging a Kerala High Court order passed in March that dismissing her plea for the production of her husband.

The top court also dealt with a question as to whether the non-supply of the statements of a person, which were taken into consideration by the detaining authority for arriving at its subjective satisfaction, had affected the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

Article 22(5) says when a person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall soon communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order was made and afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against it.

The bench held that the non-supply of the statements had affected the right of the detenu to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) and, as such, the detention was vitiated on this ground. It noted that the failure to furnish copies of such documents as relied on by the detaining authority, which would deprive a detenu to make an effective representation, certainly amounts to a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5).

It further noted that the detenu submitted his representation on September 27 last year to the jail authorities for onward transmission to the detaining authority and the Centre.