Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: Shabna Abdulla vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 20th August 2024
Judges: Hon'ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon'ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Hon'ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Advocates:
For the Appellant: Mr. Raghenth Basant, Senior Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Senior Counsel
Acts & Sections Involved:
Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA)
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India
Cited Judgments:
Nushath Koyamu vs. Union of India & Others, 2022 (3) KLT 885
Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand & Others, (2008) 10 SCC 1
Atma Ram Vaidya vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1951 SC 157
Introduction
The case of Shabna Abdulla vs. The Union of India & Ors. revolves around the legality of a detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The detention was challenged by the appellant, who is the sister-in-law of the detenue, Abdul Raoof. The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment delivered on 20th August 2024, quashed the detention order and the subsequent confirmation order, citing the failure to provide necessary documents to the detenue, thereby infringing his rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident on 20th April 2021, where contraband gold was discovered in the unaccompanied baggage of one Althaf Moosan Mukri. The gold, weighing 14,763.30 grams and valued at Rs. 7,16,16,768/-, was found concealed inside a refrigerator compressor. Subsequent investigations revealed that the detenue, Abdul Raoof, who was residing in Dubai, UAE, was involved in smuggling operations, using his cargo handling business to send contraband gold to India.
Detention orders were issued against three co-accused, including the detenue, under Section 3 of COFEPOSA on 24th August 2021. The detenue was arrested on 5th March 2022, and the grounds for detention were provided on 7th March 2022. The appellant challenged the detention order on the grounds that certain crucial documents, including WhatsApp chats that were relied upon by the detaining authority, were not provided to the detenue.
Key Legal Issues
The primary legal issue in this case is whether the non-supply of certain documents, specifically WhatsApp chats, vitally affected the detenue’s right to make an effective representation as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The appellant contended that the detention order should be quashed on this ground, particularly since a Coordinate Bench of the Kerala High Court had already quashed similar detention orders in the cases of co-accused on identical grounds. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case also examined the principle of judicial discipline, particularly the obligation of a Division Bench to follow the decision of a Coordinate Bench unless there are significant distinguishing factors.
Judicial Reasoning and Observations
The Supreme Court observed that the grounds of detention in the present case were almost identical to those in the cases of co-accused, whose detention orders were quashed by the Kerala High Court in the Nushath Koyamu case. The Court noted that the WhatsApp chats, which were crucial to the detaining authority's satisfaction, were not provided to the detenue despite specific requests.
Highlighting the importance of judicial discipline, the Court referred to its observations in the Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand & Others case:
"We are distressed to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is a substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline."
The Court emphasized that when a Coordinate Bench has quashed detention orders on identical grounds, another Bench must follow that decision unless it believes the earlier decision is incorrect. In such a case, the matter should be referred to a larger Bench.
The Supreme Court found that the High Court, in the present case, erred by not following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Nushath Koyamu and other connected matters. The Court stated:
"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."
Importance of Judicial Discipline
In its judgment, the Supreme Court strongly emphasized the significance of judicial discipline, particularly within the High Courts. The Court noted that predictability and certainty are hallmarks of the Indian judicial system, developed over decades. It expressed concern over the increasing instances where judges and benches of the High Courts refuse to follow the decisions of Coordinate Benches, citing minor differences in facts.
The Court observed:
"Disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have a grave impact on the credibility of judicial institutions and encourage chance litigation."
The Court reiterated that in situations where a Division Bench disagrees with the decision of a Coordinate Bench, the correct approach is to refer the matter to a larger Bench rather than issuing a conflicting judgment.
Quashing of the Detention Order
The Supreme Court's decision to quash the detention order was primarily based on the failure of the detaining authority to supply the WhatsApp chats, which were crucial to the detention decision. The Court ruled that this non-supply constituted a violation of the detenue’s right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to be informed of the grounds of detention and to make a representation against it. This decision reinforces the legal principle that procedural fairness must be strictly observed in preventive detention cases.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court, after considering the material on record and the principles of judicial discipline, quashed the detention order dated 24th August 2021 and the confirmation order dated 24th May 2022. The Court allowed the appeal on the ground that the non-supply of crucial documents, including WhatsApp chats, had vitally affected the detenue's right to make an effective representation.
This judgment underscores the importance of adherence to procedural fairness in preventive detention cases and reaffirms the necessity of judicial discipline within the judiciary. The ruling also highlights the critical role of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India in safeguarding the rights of individuals against arbitrary detention.
Comments