Holding

Section 5A makes each ground of detention severable; the invalidity of one ground does not vitiate the entire order of detention.

Summary

The respondent, C.M. Soni, was detained under section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) on 20 October 1978. The order of detention listed several grounds, one of which (ground No. 7) was held by the Gujarat High Court to be irrelevant, leading the High Court to quash the detention on the basis that any irrelevant ground vitiated the entire order. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the meaning of section 5A of COFEPOSA, which states that grounds of detention are severable and that the order is not invalid merely because one ground is vague, irrelevant, or non‑existent. The Court held that each ground is a separate basis for detention and the invalidity of one does not affect the validity of the others. Consequently, the High Court’s interpretation of section 5A was overruled, but the Supreme Court chose not to disturb the High Court’s order quashing the detention, dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether section 5A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 makes each ground of detention severable such that the invalidity of one ground invalidates the entire order of detention.

Legislation cited

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974s. 3, s. 5A

Subjects

COFEPOSAdetentionsection 5Aseverabilitysmugglingforeign exchangehabeas corpus

Judgment

500

A STATE OF GUJARAT
v. ...
CHAMANLAL MANJIBHAI SONI
January 8, 1981
B
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.]

Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities
Act, 1974, .~ection SA, interpretation of.
}i{aintaining the order of the High Court quashing the detention, the
c Court f
HELD : (I) The detention under section 3 of the COFEPOSA is only
for the purpose of preventing smuggling and all the grounds, \\'hether there
are one or more, \\'Ould be relatable only to various activities of smuggling
and no other sepa-rat'e ground which could deal with matters other than
smuggling could be conceived of because the Act of smuggling covers several
activities each forming a separate ground of detention and the Act deals
D with no other act except smuggling. Indeed, if the interpretation, namely,
that Section 5A contemplates that there should be only one' ground which
relates to the violation of section 3 of the Act and if that ground is irrelevant
while the other grounds which relate· to the same subject rnatter are clear
and specific the detention order will not stand vitiated, is accepted, then
section 5A will become otiose. [501 H, 502 A-q
E (2) Whenever allegations of smuggling are made against a person who
is sought to be deta-ined for preventing further smuggling, there is bound
to be one act or several acts with the con1mon object of smuggling gocxls
wltlch is sought to be prevented by the Act. Jt would, therefore, not be
correct to My that the object of the Act constitutes the ground for deten·
tion. If this is so, in no case there could be any other ground for detention,
except the one which relates to smuggling. This is neither the object of the
F Act nor ca!l such an object be spelt out from the language in which sec~
tion 5A is couched. What section 5 (A) of the Act provides is that where
there are a number of grounds of detention covering various activities of the ~
detenu spreading over a period or periods, ea-ch activity is a separate ground \
by itself and if one of the grounds is irrelevant, vague or unspecific, then
that will not vitiate the ordep of detention on the other grounds.
[502 H, 503 A)
G
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 91 of
19m ~
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
22-12-1978 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Application No.
245/78.
II
M. N. Phadke and M. N. Shroff for the Appellant.
J. G. Shah, Vineet Kumar and Ashok Kaul for the Respondent.
-t

GUJARAT V. C. M. SONI (Fa.zal Ali, J.) 501

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
FAZAL ALI, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against
. tbe judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated December 22, 1978 in
a Criminal Habeas Corpug Writ for quashing the order of detention
PMl!ed against the detenu. 'I1Je detenu was arrested on October 20,
1978 and grounds of detention were sefved on him that very day. B
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition mainly on the ground that,
as one of the grounds, namely, ground No. 7 was irrelevant, the entire
order of detention is vitiated. In corning to this finding, the High
Court, has put, in our opinion, a wrong interpretation on Sec. 5 (A)
Of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section SA c
reads thus:
"SA. Ground9 of detention severable.-Where a person
has been detained in pursuance ol' an order of detention
under sub-section (1) of section 3 which has been made o'n
two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deem-
ed to have been made separately on each of snch grounds D
and accordingly-
( a) such order shall no't be deemed to be invalid or in-

- operative merely because one or some of the grounds
is or are-
(i) vague, E
(ii) non-existent,
(iii) not relevant,
(iv) not connected or not proximately connected with
S'Uch person, or ·~
(v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever, F
and it is not therefore possible to bold that the
.,,.:. .
Government or officer making such order would
have been satisfied as provided in sub-section

•
(1) of section 3 with reference to the remaining
ground or grounds and made the order of G
detention,
(b) the Government or officer making the order of
detention shall be deemed to have made the order of
detention under the said snb-section ( 1) after being
satisfied as provided in that sub-section with reference
to the remaining ground or grounds." H
The High Court seems to think that Sec. 5 (A) contemplates that
there should be only one ground which relates to the violation of
l~-57 SCI/81
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [198]\ 2 $.C..R.
A Sec. 3 of the Act and if that gronnd is irrelevant and the other grounds
which relate to some other subject matter are clear and specific, the
detention will not stand vitiated. In our opinion, the argument of the
High Court with due respect amounts to begging the question because
the detention under Sec. 3 of the Act is only for the purpose of pre-
venting smuggling and all the grounds whether there are one or more,
R would be relatable only to v~rious activities of smuggling and we
cannot conceive of any other separate ground which could deal with
matters other than smuggling because the act of smuggling covers
several activities each forming a separate ground of detention and the
Act deals with no other act except smuggling. Indeed, if the interpre-
,.
tation of the High Court in respect of Sec. S(A) is accepted. then
c Sec. 5/\. will become otio~e. While construing section 5 (A) the High
Court observed thus : -
"But in the present case the subjective satisfaction i;
based on one ground, that is, for preventing the present
petitioner from smuggling goods and in support of that ground
..
D various statements have been relied upon and the totality of
consideration of all these statements has resulted in the sub-
jective satisfaction of the detaining authority when it passed
the impugned order of detention. Now for these totality of

E
circumstances considered by the detaining authority, if one
irrelevant or unsustainable element has entered in the process
of subjective satisfaction, the process of arriving at subjective
satisfaction being comprehensive, the said element would
-
disturb the entire process of subjective satisfaction and conse-
quently, even if one statement which could not have been re-
lied upon appeared before the mind's eye of the detaining
authori!j, it could easily be seen that its subjective satisfac-
F tion would be vitiated and its final decison would rest upon
a part of the material which is irrelevant."
The process of reasoning adopted by the High Court is absolutely ~
unintelligible to us. It is manifest that whenever the allegations of

•
smuggling are made against a person who is sought to be detained by
G way of preventing further smuggling, there is bound to be one act or
several acts witl1 the common object of smuggling goods which is sought
to be prevented by the Act. It would, therefore, not be correct to say
that the object of the Act constitutes the ground for detention. If this is
so, in no case there could be any other ground for detention, except the
one which relates to smuggling. In our opinion, this is neither the
II object of the Act nor can such an object be spelt ou! from the langu-
age in which Sec. SA is couched. What the Act provides is that
where there are a number of grounds of detenfion covering various
GUJARAT v. c. M. SONI (Fazal Ali, !.) 503
)

activities of the detenu spreading over a period or periods, each acti- A
vity is a separate ground by itself and if one of the grounds is irrele-
vant, vague or unspecific, then that will not vitiate the order of
detention. The reason fo'r enacting Sec. 5 (A) was the fact that seve-
ral High Courts took the view that where several grounds are men-
tioned in an order of detention and one of them is found to be either
vague or irrelevant then the entire order is vitiated because it cannot B
be predicted to what extent the subjective satisfaction of the autho~
rity could have been influenced by the vague or irrelevant ground. It
was to displace the basis of these decisions that the Parliament en-
acted Sec. 5 (A) in order to make it clear that even if one of the

r ~grounds is irrelevan.t but the other grounds are clear and specific that
by itself would not vitiate the order of detention. Mr. G. A. Shah
appearing for the detenu frankly conceded that he is not in a position
c

f to support the view taken by the Gujarat High Court on the interpre-
tation of Sec. 5 (A). He also stated that he does not want to challenge
i the vires of Sec. 5 (A) of the Act. Mr. Phadke has frankly slated that
I
he only wants the law to be settled in the peculiar circumst~nces of D
I this case and the order of the High Court quashing the detention need
I not be disturbed. We, therefore, hold that t)le view taken by the High

l
Court on interpretation of Sec. 5(A) is legally erroneous and is here-
by overruled. With these observations the appeal is disposed of with-.
out disturbing the order. of the High Court quashing the order of
detention. E

S.R. Appeal dismissed.

I !