Summary
Two persons were detained in Manipur under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. Before the High Court they pleaded, identifying the pages, that copies of documents relied on in the grounds of detention were blurred and illegible. The State did not deny this, arguing only that the detenus had not complained to the detaining authority. The High Court quashed the detentions. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeals. Article 22(5) gives a detenu a fundamental right to make an effective representation, which requires legible copies of the documents relied upon. Supplying illegible copies vitiates the detention. Not raising the objection before the detaining authority does not take away the right to challenge the order under Article 226, where the illegibility stood uncontroverted.
Issues
- Whether a detention order under the PIT NDPS Act, 1988 is vitiated by supply of illegible copies of documents relied upon, where the detenu did not complain of illegibility to the detaining authority but raised it before the High Court.
Provisions considered
- Article 22(5), Constitution of IndiaThe detenu's right to be informed of the grounds and to make an effective representation requires supply of legible copies of the documents relied upon; illegible copies violate it. (¶¶ 16, 17, 21, 22)
- Detention order, Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988The detention orders passed under the Act were held illegal for want of legible relied-upon documents. (¶¶ 2, 7, 24)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe detenu could assail the detention on this ground in the writ petition even though it was not raised before the detaining authority. (¶¶ 23, 24)
Held
- The right to make a representation is a fundamental right under Article 22(5); the detenu must have all information needed for an effective representation, and supply of illegible or blurred copies of relied-upon documents, as much as refusal to supply them, renders the detention illegal. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
- Failure to complain of illegibility before the detaining authority does not take away the right to challenge the detention under Article 226, particularly where the specific allegation identifying illegible pages stood uncontroverted in the State's counter affidavit. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
Result
Appeals dismissed; the Manipur High Court's orders setting aside the detention orders upheld.