Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment quashing a COFEPOSA detention order solely because it omitted a detention period. The larger-Bench decision in T. Devaki had overruled Bhiryani, on which the High Court relied: the legislation did not require specification, and omission did not itself invalidate detention. The detention order stood revived, but its period had already expired, so no further action remained beyond correcting the legal position.
Issues
- Whether omission of the detention period invalidated the COFEPOSA order.
- What relief remained after expiry of the detention period.
Held
- Under the controlling larger-Bench decision in T. Devaki, the relevant legislation did not require the detaining authority to specify the period. The quoted authorities treated an unspecified period as the statutory maximum; omission alone was not a ground of invalidity. (¶¶ 3, 4)
- Bhiryani had been overruled and could not support quashing. The High Court decision in Santhi likewise misstated the law to the extent it adopted that position. (¶¶ 4, 5)
- Setting aside the High Court judgment revived the detention order, but the detention period had already ended. The Court therefore confined further consequences to clarification of the correct legal position. (¶¶ 6, 7)
Result
Appeal disposed of; High Court judgment set aside and detention order revived. Since the detention period had expired, no further action remained.