Holding

The detention order is not vitiated; the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Sanjay Bhandari was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) for alleged misuse of Export Promotion Capital Goods licences and smuggling of imported vehicles. His wife, Ranu Bhandari, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention on the ground that the Detaining Authority had not supplied certain documents, including those in the detenu's favour, thereby preventing an effective representation under Article 22(5). The Delhi High Court quashed the detention order, holding that the non‑supply of those documents vitiated the order. The Union appealed, contending that the required documents had been indicated in the order and that the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions did not demand supply of every document. The Supreme Court held that while the Detaining Authority must be furnished with all material, both for and against the detenu, the omission of vital documents from the authority’s consideration prevented the detenu from making an effective representation, and therefore the High Court’s decision stands. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The non‑supply of documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority, especially those favourable to the detenu, vitiates a preventive detention order under COFEPOSA and Article 22(5).
Whether the documents mentioned in the detention order but not supplied to the detenu must be provided for an effective representation.

Legislation cited

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974s. 3(1)

Subjects

preventive detentionCOFEPOSAArticle 22(5)non‑supply of documentseffective representationpersonal libertysmugglingexport promotion scheme

Judgment

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 582
~.

A UNION OF INDIA
V.
RANU BHANDARI
(Criminal Appeal No. 1468 of 2008)
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
B
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]

Preventive Detention - Non-supply of documents - Chai-
lenge to - Quashing of detention order by High Court - Inter-
c ference with - Held: While issuing detention order the Detain-
ing Authority must be provided with all the materials available
against the individual and in his favour - When detention or-
der is passed, detenu is to be supplied with all material relied
upon by Detaining Authority in issuing detention order to make
effective representation against the order - On facts, vital
D
documents having direct bearing on detention order not placed ~· '
before Detaining Authority including the Order which absolved
detenu from criminal proceedings - On account thereof,
detenu prevented from making effective representation against
detention order - Thus, order of High Court does not call for
E interference - Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Pre-
vention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - s. 3(1).
Respondent's husband obtained Export Promotion
Capital Goods Scheme licences as service provider for
F the Companies floated by him. He imported vehicles at
concessional rate for personal use. He did not use them
~- •
for tourists purposes as declared for obtaining E.P.C.G.
licences. The Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate did
not relate to his earnings from use of imported cars. The
said activities amounted to smuggling, and as such the
G
respondent's husband was issued detention order u/s. d
3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Pre- •
vention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 to prevent smug-
gling of goods in future. Respondent filed a Habeas Cor-
~ .
H 582
UNION OF INDIA v. RANU BHANDARI 583
r --+
pus petition challenging the detention order on the ground A
that the non-supply of various documents considered by
the Detaining Authority while issuing the detention order,
preveRted the detenu from making the effective represen-
tation to the detention order. High Court allowed the writ
).. petition and quashed the detention order. Hence the B
-I
present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Since the personal liberty and individual
freedom of a citizen is curtailed by an order of preventive c
detention, the Detaining Authorities must apply their
minds carefully and exercise great caution in passing
such an order upon being fully satisfied. from materials
which are both for and against the detenu that such an
order is required to be passed in the interest of the State
~~
D
and for the public good. [Para 32] [595,GH]
1.2 While issuing an order of detention, the Detain-
ing Authority must be provided with all the materials avail-
able against the individual concerned, both against him
and in his favour, to enable it to reach a just conclusion E
that the detention of such individual is necessary in the
interest of the State and the general public. When a de-
tention order is passed all the material relied upon by the
Detaining Authority in making such an order, must be ·
,- " supplied to the detenu to enable him to make an effective F
representation against the detention order in compliance
with Article 22(5) of the Constitution, irrespective of
whether he had knowledge of the same or not. These
have been recognized as the minimum safeguards to
I ensure that preventive detention laws, which are an evil
necessity, do not become instruments of oppression in
G
the hands of the concerned authorities or to avoid crimi-
. -.( nal proceedings which would entail a proper investiga-
tion. [Para 25] [593 E-H]
2.1 In the instant case, it is accepted that notwith- H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
+- '

A standing the nature of the allegations made, he was en-
titled to the assurance that at the time when the detention
order was passed all the materials, both for and against
him, had been placed for the consideration of the Detain-
ing Authority and had been considered by it before the .(_
B detention order was passed, having particular regard to
the orders passed by the Settlement Commission ap-
pointed under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962,
which absolved the detenu from all criminal prosecution.
Furthermore, if the detenu's representation and writ peti-
c tion had been placed before the detaining Authority, which
according to the detenue contained his entire defence to
the allegations made against him, the same may have
weighed with the Detaining Authority as to the necessity
of issuing the order of detention at all. [Paras 28 and 29)
D [595 A,8,D] ~.

2.2 As some of the vital documents which have a di-
rect bearing on the detention order, had not been placed
before the Detaining Authority, there was sufficient
ground for the detenu to question such omission. On
E
account of the non-supply of the documents mentioned
the detenu was prevented from making an effective rep-
resentation against his detention. Thus, there is no rea-
son to interfere with the judgment and order of the High
F
Court. [Paras 30 and 31) [595 D,E,F] ...
Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2000
(9) SCC 1790; J. Abdul Hakeem vs. State of TN. and Ors.
2005 (7) SCC 70; Sunila Jain vs Union of India 2006 (3) SCC
321; M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India 1990 (2) SCC 1;
G Mehrunissa v. State of Maharashtra 1981 (2) SCC 709;
Ashadevi wife of Gopal Ghermal v K. Shivraj 1979 (1) SCC
222; Ayya @Ayub's case 1989 (1) SCC 374; Sk. Nizamuddin ~·

v State of West Bengal 1975 (3) SCC 395; State of U.P v
Kamal Kishore Saini 1988 (1) SCC 287 - referred to.
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RANU BHANDARI 585
• -r

Case Law Reference A
2000 (9) sec 1190 Referred to. Para 11
2005 (7) sec 10 Referred to. Para 12, 28
2006 (3) sec 321 Referred to. Para 14
1990 (2) sec 1 Referred to. Para 18, 26 B
1981 (2) sec 109 Referred to. Para 18, 26
1979 (1 > sec 222 Referred to. Para 19, 26
1915 (3) sec 395 Referred to. Para 20
1988 (1) sec 281 Referred to. Para 21 c
1989 (1) sec 374 Referred to. Para 26
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal
No. 1468 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.8.2006 of D
·~ the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Criminal)
No. 337 of 2006
A. Sharan, A.S.G., Amit Anand Tiwari, T.A. Khan, B.V.
Bairam Das and 8. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant.
E
Vikram Chaudhary, Rakesh Dahiya and Himanshu
Shekhar for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

-.; ALTAMAS KABIR,J. 1. !-eave granted.
F
2. On 15th December, 2005, the Joint Secretary
(COFEPOSA), Government of India, Ministry of Finance, De-
partment of Revenue, New Delhi, issued an order ofdetention
against Shri Sanjay Bhandari, the husband of the respondent/
writ petitioner, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of For-
G
t
eign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,
1974, (hereinafter referred to as "COFEPOSA"), to prevent the
. .lf detenu from smuggling goods in future.
3. The facts which are said to have led to the passing of
the detention order are briefly summarized hereunder. H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
--t- <

A 4. Shri Sanjay Bhandari obtained Export Promotion Capi-
tal Goods Scheme (E.P.C.G.) licences as Service Provider in
respect of four firms/companies which were floated by him from
time to time and imported vehicles at concessional rates for
personal use in flagrant misuse of the said licences. The said
B vehicles were never used for tourist purposes as declared for
...(

obtaining the E.P.C.G. licences and the Foreign Inward Remit-
tance Certificate shown by him did not relate to his earnings
from the use of the imported cars. In addition to the above, all
the vehicles which were imported under the aforesaid licences
were registered as private vehicles.
c
5. Shri Sanjay Bhandari was found to have violated various
provisions/conditions of the Exim Policy, Foreign Trade Policy and
Customs exemptions notifications and during the investigations
conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 51 out of
61 vehicles were seized, though most of them were released pro-
D
visionally on payment of differential duty and execution of Bonds ~ ~

and Bank Guarantees. Shri Bhandari's said activities were held
to amount to smuggling as defined in Section 2(39) of the Cus-
toms Act as adopted in Section 2(e) of the COFEPOSAAct, 1974.
Considering the nature and gravity of Shri Bhandari's activities
E over a period of time and his high potentiality and propensity to
indulge in such prejudicial activities in future, the order of detention
was issued against him on 15th December, 2005, under Section
3(1) of the COFEPOSAAct, 1974.

F
6. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the detenu's wife, _.,
Ranu Bhandari, filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the Delhi
High Court challenging the legality of the same mainly on the
ground of non-supply of various documents, which according to
the respondent, prevented the detenu from making an effective
representation to the detention order. Being satisfied that cer-
G tain relevant documents which had been considered by the
Detaining Authority while issuing the detention order had not
been supplied to the detenu to make an effective representa-
tive against his continued detention, the High Court allowed his
Writ Petition and quashed the detention order dated 15th De-
H cember, 2005, which has been challenged in the appeal.
UNION OF INDIA v. RANU BHANDARI 587
t """i" [ALTAMAS KABIR,J.]

· 7. The Union of India is in appeal against the judgment A
and order of the High Court.
8. Learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. A. Sharan,
questioned the decision of the High Court on the ground that all
the documents which had been considered by the Detaining
..... B
Authority and found to be relevant in issuing the detention or-
der, had been indicated in the detention order and supplied to
the detenu. Furthermore, it was pointed out by the learned So-
licitor General that the documents which were not supplied origi-
nated from the detenu himself.
c
9. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that
the question as to what documents were required to be. sup-
plied to a detenu along with the detention order has fallen for
consideration of this Court in innumerable cases. The consis-
tent view which has been taken by this Court is that documents
D
)-.~ which had been relied upon by the Detaining Authority to come
to a decision that it was necessary to issue the order of deten-
tion, would have to be supplied to the detenu to enable him to
understand the grounds on which the detention order had been
passed and to make an effective representation in respect
thereof, in keeping with Article 22(5) of the Constitution. E

10. The learned Additional Solicitor General also submit-
ted that apart from the aforesaid view of general application,
two other views had also been taken by this Court. One view
was that all documents referred to or mentioned in the deten- F
---f.
tion order would have to be supplied to the deteriu and if even
one of them was not supplied, the detention order would stand
vitiated, The other view was that except for the documents which
were relevant and had been relied upon by the Detaining Au-
thority in passing the detention order, other documents men-
G
tioned in the detention order or referred to therein were not re-
quired to be supplied to the detenu. The learned Additional Solici-
. _.. tor General reiterated that in the instant case all the documents on
which the Detaining Authority had relied while issuing the deten-
tion order, had been duly supplied to the detenu, who, however,
H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
't' •

A insisted that he should have also been provided with certain docu-
ments which were within his knowledge. The said documents had
been itemised as his representation dated 12.12.2005, the show-
cause notice dated 22.7.2004 which had been received by him,
his writ petition No.5431 of2002 and the l.E.C. Code pertaining to
B the three proprietorship firms belonging to him, which had not been ..(
placed before the Detaining Authority. It was submitted that not
only did the detenu have knowledge of all the said documents, but
they were available with the detenu.
11. In support of his aforesaid contention the learned Ad-
c ditional Solicitor General firstly relied on the decision of this
Court in Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu
[(2000) 9 sec 1790], wherein while considering an identical
question this Court, inter alia, observed as follows:
"We make it clear that there is no legal requirement that
D
a copy of every document mentioned in the order shall ~ _..
invariably be supplied to the detenu. What is more
important is that copies of only such of those documents
as have been relied on by the detaining authority for
reaching the satisfaction that preventive detention of the .
E detenu is necessary shall be supplied to him."
It was also observed that since the bail application of the
detenu had not engaged the attention of the Detaining Authority
while passing the detention order, the non-supply or non- place-
F ment thereof before the Detaining Authority would not vitiate Jr-
the detention order.
12. The learned Additional Solicitor General also referred
to and relied upon the decision of this Court in J. Abdul Hakeem
vs. State of T.N. and others [2005) 7 SCC 70], wherein after
G considering some of the earlier decisions of this Court, the
learned Judges quoted, with approval, the decision of this Court
in Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran's case (supra) and the obser-
vations made therein. ... '

13. Relying on the aforesaid view, this Court had held that
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RANU BHANDARI 589
.. ~
[ALTAMAS KABIR,J.]

although the copy of the passport of the detenu had not been A
supplied to him, though reference had been made to the same in
the detention order, what had weighed with the Detaining Author-
ity in issuing the detention order was a statement made by the
detenu in his own hand-writing admitting that he had made sev-
l.. eral visits outside the country. The reference to the passport en- B
tries bad been made only by way of reference and was not the
basis of the detention order. On the facts of the said case, being
of the view that non-supply of the passport of the detenu had not
prejudicially affected his right to make an effective representa-
tion against the order of detention, it was held that the non-supply c
of the copy of the passport would not vitiate the detention order.
14. Further reference was made to the decision of this
Court in Sunila Jain vs Union of India ((2006) 3 SCC 321 ],
wherein also several decisions of this Court were considered,
including that of Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran (supra), and it was D
~~ held that non-placement of a copy of the bail application of the
detenu before the Detaining Authority was not sufficient to viti-
ate the order of detention, since the same was within the knowl-
edge of the Detaining Authority and had been taken into con-
sideration while passing the detention order. E
15. The learned Additional Solicitor General urged that the
instant case would fall within that class of cases wherein this Court
has held that non-supply of all the documents mentioned in the
detention order, which had no relevance in regard to the Detain-
----1- ing Authority's satisfaction in passing the order of detention, would F
not vitiate the same. It was submitted that the High Court had
erroneously proceeded on the basis of the other class of cases
wherein this Court had held that even if one of the grounds of
detention was found to be vague or defective or any of the docu-
ments on which reliance had been placed by the Detaining Au- G
thority had not been supplied to the detenu, it would vitiate the
detention order, although the same did not apply in the facts of
. ~ this case. It was submitted that the impugned order of the High
Court was contrary to the views expressed by this Court in simi-
lar matters and the same was, therefore, required to be set aside. H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A 16. The judgment and order of the High Court was, how-
ever, strongly defended on behalf of the respondent-wife of the
detenu. It was submitted by Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent, that this Court had con-
sistently held that since an order of detention adversely affected
s the personal liberty and individual freedom of a citizen and struck
at the very roots of the fundamental rights guaranteed under
Articles 19, 20, 21 and even 22 of the Constitution, the same
had to be carefully scrutinized when challenged by the detenu
on any of the grounds available to him or her.

C 17. It was submitted that in the instant case certain vital
documents which could have had a bearing on the decision of
the Detaining Authority while passing the detention order, had
not been placed before the Detaining Authority as the same
were in the detenu's favour and upon considering the same the
D Detaining Authority may not have issued the said detention or-
der. Mr. Chaudhary submitted that the representation which had
been made by the detenu on 12.12.2005, the agreement dated
9.11.07 executed between the detenu and his agents for using
the resort for which the vehicles had been imported, the rel-
E evant portions of the Settlement Commission's order by which
the detenu had been absolved of all criminal proceedings, and
the writ petition filed by the detenu, would have convincingly
placed the case of the detenu before the Detaining Authority
had they been before the said Authority for consideration. It was
F further submitted that non-supply of the said documents, irre-
spective of whether they had originated from the detenu him-
self, had prevented the detenu from making an effective repre-
sentation against the detention order, since without having the
documents in front of him, it was not possible for the detenu to
G remember the contents of the said documents in their entirety,
which contained in detail the stand of the detenu. By depriving
the detenu of the said documents he was deprived of the right
guaranteed to him under Article 22(5) of the Constitution which
was mandatory and any breach thereof had been held by this
Court to be sufficient to vitiate the detention order.
H
UNION OF INDIA v. RANU BHANDARI 591
[ALTAMAS KABIR,J.)
~ --f
18. Mr. Chaudhary derived support for his aforesaid con- A
tention from the decision of this Court in M. Ahamedkutty v. Union
of India [(1990) 2 SCC 1), wherein it was reiterated that the
right under Article 22(5) is a right to make an effective repre-
sentation and when some documents are referred to or relied
.i
on in the grounds of detention, without copies of such docu- B
="",
ments, the grounds of detention would not be complete. The
detenu, therefore, had the right to be supplied with the grounds
of detention along with the documents which were referred to
or relied upon and if there was failure or even delay in furnish-
ing those documents, it would amount to denial of making an c
effective representation. It was aiso observed that it was imma-
terial whether the detem(already knew about their contents or
not, but the non-supply of the copies thereof was fatal as was
held in Mehrunissa v. State of Maharashtra [(1981) 2 SCC 709].
It was emphasised that in order to appreciate this point it would
D
.____\ have to be kept in mind that the detenu is in jail and has no
access even to his own documents.
19. Learned counsel submitted that in the case ofAshadevi
wife of Gopal Ghermal v K.Shivraj [(1979) 1 SCC 222], this
Court had indicated that if material or vital facts, which could E
influence the mind of the Detaining Authority one way or the
other on the question whether or not to issue the detention or-
der, are not placed before the Detaining Authority or are not
considered by the said authority, it would vitiate its subjective
satisfaction rendering the detention order illegal. F
20. Learned counsel submitted that the said view had there-
after been consistently followed, with minor variations, since the
personal liberty of a citizen was prejudicially affected by the
passing of a detention order which enabled the State authori-
ties to detain a citizen without a trial. Learned counsel submit- G
ted that, in fact, the Detaining Authorities have been held to the
rigors of the detaining-enactments while passing detention or-
• • ders as would also be clear from the decision of this Court in
Sk. Nizamuddin v State of West Bengal [(1975) 3 SCC 395],
where the delay of two and a half months in detaining the peti- H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
+ •
A tioner therein pursuant to the orders of detention, was held to
cast considerable doubts on the genuineness of the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining magistrate and prompted this Court
to quash the detention order.
21. Learned counsel submitted that the views expressed
B in Ashadevi's case (supra) and in various other similar cases J
<
were subsequently referred to and relied upon in State of U.P. v
Kamal Kishore Saini [(1988) 1 SCC 287], while quashing the
detention order impugned in the said case.
22. Learned counsel for the detenu lastly contended that
c when the Settlement Commission set up under the Customs
Act, 1962, had absolved the detenu from all criminal prosecu-
tion after a settlement had been reached, the Detaining Author-
ity had issued the detention order only with the intention of by-
passing the order of the said Commission and rendering the
D same ineffectual. It was submitted that in such circumstances
no interference was called for with the order of the High Court 'f·---
which had rightly quashed the order of detention issued against
the detenu on 12.12.2005.
23. Keeping in mind the fact that of all human rights the
E right to personal liberty and individual freedom is probably the
most cherished, we can now proceed to examine the conten-
tion advanced on behalf of the parties in the facts and circum-
stances of this case. But before we proceed to do so, it would
be apposite to reproduce herein below a verse from a song
F which was introduced in the cinematographic version of Joy
Adamson's memorable classi-c 'Born Free', which in a few >·
simple words encapsulate the essence of personal liberty and
individual freedom and runs as follows:
"Born free, as free as the wind blows,
G As free as the grass grows,
Born free to follow your heart.
Born free and beauty surrounds you,
......
The world still astounds you,
H Each time you look at a star.
,
I
I

UNION OF INDIA v. RANU BHANDARI 593
[ALTAMAS KABIR,J.]

Stay free, with no walls to hide you, A
You're as free as the roving tide,
So there's no need to hide.
Born free and life is worth living,
It's only worth living, if you're born free." B
24. The aforesaid words aptly describe the concept of
personal liberty and individual freedom which may, however,
be curtailed by preventive detention laws, which could be used
to consign an individual to the confines of jail without any trial,
on the basis of the satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Au- c
thority on the basis of material placed before him. The Courts
which are empowered to issue prerogative writs have, there·
fore, to be extremely cautious in examining the manner in which
a detention order is passed in respect of an individual so that
.-- " his right to personal liberty and individual freedom is not arbi- D
trarily taken away from him even temporarily without following
the procedure prescribed by law.
25. We have indicated hereinbefore that the consistent
view expressed by this Court in matters relating to preventive
E
detention is that while issuing an order of detention, the Detain-
ing Authority must be provided with all the materials available
against the individual concerned, both against him and in his
favour, to enable it to reach a just conclusion that the detention.
- '1
of such individual is necessary in the interest of the State and
the general public. It has also been the consistent view that when F
a detention order is passed all the material relied upon by the
Detaining Authority in making such an order, must be supplied
to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation
against the detention order in compliance with Article 22(5) of
the Constitution, irrespective of whether he had knowledge of G
the same or not. These have been recognized by this Court as
. ~ the minimum safeguards to ensure that preventive detention
laws. which are an evil necessity, do not become instruments of ·
oppression in the hands of the concerned authorities or to avoid
criminal proceedings which would entail a proper investigation. H
.. '

594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
..,... <(

A 26. In most cases the decision of this Court have gone in
favour of detenu when even one of the grounds of detention did
not satisfy the rigors of proof of its genuineness as a founda-
tional fact in support thereof. The decisions rendered in
Ashadevi's case (supra), Mehrunissa's case (supra), Ayya @
B Ayub's case [(1989) 1 sec 374] and Ahamedkutty's case, all
referred to hereinbefore, have relied on the principle that al-
though the State is empowered to issue orders of preventive
A.
-
detention, since the liberty of an individual was in question, such
power should be exercised by the Detaining Authority on con-
c sideration of relevant material, both against and in favour of the
individual concerned, to arrive at a just conclusion that his de-
tention was necessary in the interest of the public and to pre-
vent him from continuing to indulge in activities which are against
the public interest and the interest of the State.
D 27. This brings us to the next question as to whether even
such material as had not been considered by the Detaining i ...
Authority while issuing the detention order, is required to be
supplied to the detenu to enable him to make an effective rep-
resentation against his detention.
E 28. The decisions cited by the Learned Additional Solici-
tor General in support of his contention that all documents men-
tioned in the detention order were not required to be served on
the detenu, such as in J. Abdul Hakeem's case (supra), takes
note of the earlier decisions in Ahamedkutty's case (supra) and
F Radhakrishnan Prabhakar's case (supra) which had make it l -

mandatory for the Detaining Authority to supply copies of all docu-
ments which had been relied upon by the Detaining Authority to
the detenu, whether he had knowledge of their contents or not. Of
course, in Radhakrishnan Prabhakar's case (supra) it was also
G made clear that there is no legal requirement that a copy of every
document mentioned in the order has to be supplied to the detenu.
What is, therefore, imperative is that copies of such documents
which had been relied up on by the Detaining Authority for reach- ., '
ing the satisfaction that in the interest of the State and its citizens
H the preventive detention of the detenu is necessary, have to be
UNION OF INDIA v. RANU BHANDARI 595
+- . [ALTAMAS KABIR,J.]

supplied to him. Furthermore, if in this case, the detenu's repre- A
sentation and writ petition had been placed before the Detaining
Authority, which according to the detenu contained his entire de-
fence to the allegations made against him, the same may have
weighed with the Detaining Authority as to the necessity of issu- ·
J.
ing the order of detention at all. s
29. We are inclined to agree with the submissions made
on behalf of the respondent that, notwithstanding the nature of
the allegations made, he was entitled to the assurance that at
the time when the detention order was passed all the materials,
both for and against him, had been placed for the consider- C
ation of the Detaining Authority and had been considered by it
before the detention order was passed: having particular re-
gard to the orders passed by the Settlement Commission ap-
pointed under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, which
absolved the detenu from all criminal prosecution. o
30. In the instant case, as some of the vital documents
which have a direct bearing on the detention order, had not been
placed before the Detaining Authority, there was sufficient
ground for the detenu to question such omission. We are also
of the view that on account of the non-supply of the documents E
mentioned hereinbefore, the detenu was prevented from mak-
ing an effective representation against his detention.
31. In the said circumstances, we do not see any reason
to interf~re with the judgment and order of the High Court and F
the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
32. In parting, we may reiterate what we have indicated
hereinbefore, that since the personal liberty and individual free-
dom of a citizen is curtailed by an order of preventive detention,
the Detaining Authorities must apply their minds carefully and G
exercise great caution in passing such an order upon being .
fully satisfied from materials which are both for and against the
detenu that such an order is required to be 'passed in the inter-
est of the State and for the public good.
N.J. Appeal dismissed. H