Summary
Preventive-detention orders concerning an alleged organised gold-smuggling syndicate were restored. Voluminous relied-on documents supplied within five days satisfied the statutory communication requirement despite being served after the detention grounds. The Court also found the necessary subjective satisfaction on the record concerning persons already in custody; absence of an express formula about likely bail release did not alone establish non-application of mind. Judicial review remained available within its recognised limits.
Issues
- Whether service of relied-on documents within five days, after service of detention grounds, invalidated detention.
- Whether the custody-related satisfaction was defective because likely release on bail was not expressly stated.
Provisions considered
- Section 3(3), Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974Required prompt communication ordinarily within five days, exceptionally fifteen with recorded reasons; supply of these voluminous documents within five days complied. (¶ 19–24)
Held
- Prompt supply must be read with the statutory time limit. No same-day requirement invalidated these orders where the documents were supplied within five days and there was no demonstrated negligence or inaction; the service date was excluded in computation. (¶ 19–24)
- The departmental handbook contained executive guidance and could not curtail the statutory period. The High Court’s reliance on those instructions did not justify quashing. (¶ 25–26)
- Detention of someone already in custody required awareness of custody, reliable grounds for a real possibility of bail release and likely prejudicial conduct on release, and preventive necessity. Satisfaction could not be mere assertion. (¶ 30–38)
- On these facts, the grounds recorded awareness of custody and rejected bail applications, individual roles and propensity to resume organised smuggling. Read as a whole with the material, the orders met the test despite omitting an express likelihood-of-release formula. (¶¶ 35–39, 43)
- Subjective satisfaction was judicially reviewable within recognised limits, but the court could not substitute its own assessment where the materials supported the preventive decision. (¶ 43)
Result
Union of India’s appeals allowed; High Court judgment quashing the two detention orders set aside. Detenues’ appeals concerning the stay of that judgment dismissed.