Summary
The Supreme Court quashed a COFEPOSA detention order and its confirmation because the High Court Division Bench that upheld them had refused to follow an earlier coordinate Division Bench, which had quashed the detention of co-detenus on almost identical grounds for non-supply of the WhatsApp chats relied on. If the later Bench doubted the earlier view, its only course was to refer the matter to a larger Bench.
Issues
- Whether a Division Bench of a High Court could decline to follow a coordinate Division Bench of the same court that had quashed the detention of co-detenus on almost identical grounds of detention and the same material.
- Whether the detention was vitiated by non-supply of the WhatsApp chats relied on by the detaining authority, as the coordinate Bench had held for the co-detenus.
Provisions considered
- Section 3, Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974The detention order of 24 August 2021 against the detenue, alleged to have sent gold concealed in refrigerator compressors from Dubai, and its confirmation of 24 May 2022, were quashed because the High Court ought to have followed the coordinate Bench that had set aside the co-detenus' detention on almost identical grounds. (¶¶ 1, 6, 18)
- Article 22(5), Constitution of IndiaThe coordinate Bench had held that non-supply of the relied-upon WhatsApp chats, despite a request, impaired the co-detenus' right to make an effective representation; the detenue here had also sought the same chats, and the grounds of detention were almost identical, so the same conclusion had to follow. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 15)
Held
- Where a coordinate Bench of the same High Court, on the same grounds of detention and the same material, had concluded that non-supply of documents vitiated the right of the co-detenus to make an effective representation, a later coordinate Bench could not ignore that decision. (¶¶ 6, 8, 15, 17)
- The later Bench's attempt to distinguish the earlier decision, on the ground that the detaining authority had also relied on other material in reaching its subjective satisfaction, failed because the same was true of the other detenus. (¶¶ 12, 16)
- Relying on Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, the Court reiterated that judicial discipline requires a Bench to follow a coordinate Bench of the same court; a Bench that considers the earlier decision wrong in law must refer the matter to a larger Bench rather than decline to follow it by citing minor differences of fact. (¶¶ 13, 14, 17)
Result
Appeal allowed on this short ground; the detention order dated 24 August 2021 and the order of 24 May 2022 confirming it quashed and set aside.