Supreme Court sets aside preventive detention order due to ineligible and illegible grounds

In a recent case of Pramod Singla v. Union of India and ors, the Supreme Court overturned a preventive detention order that had been issued on the basis of illegible and Chinese language documents. Justices Krishna Murari and V Ramasubramanian emphasized that any procedural irregularities in such cases must work in favor of the detenue. In situations where a detenue is provided with illegible documents, the detenue is unable to fully exercise their right to send a representation to the relevant authorities. This is because they do not have clarity on the grounds of their detention, which can lead to the vitiation of relief under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the relevant statutory provisions.

The Supreme Court further noted the importance of ensuring procedural rigidity in the issuance of preventive detention orders. Preventive detention laws in India are a colonial legacy, and as such, they have a high potential to be abused and misused. Therefore, it is the duty of the courts, as enshrined by the Constitution, to protect individual and civil liberties. The Court emphasized that protecting civil liberties is not just about preserving the rights of individuals but also preserving the Constitutional ethos that was fought for against the arbitrary power of the British state.

The case centered around allegations that the appellant was involved in a syndicate of Chinese, Taiwanese, and South Korean nationals, as well as some Indian nationals. They were accused of smuggling gold into India through air cargo by concealing it in machines. The appellant sought to have the detention order quashed on the grounds that the authorities delayed considering his representation for more than 60 days. 

Although the government in the present case acted according to the procedure established by law and could not have its order quashed on account of delay, the principle of parity applied as other accused were released from detention on the ground that the case-related documents supplied to them were in Chinese. In January of this year, the top court had released the appellant from custody, initially as an interim relief due to the demise of his father and then finally due to the expiry of the detention order.

Case: Pramod Singla v Union of India & Ors. 

Counsel for Appellant: Sr. Adv. Vikram Chaudhri, Adv. Nikhil Jain

Counsel for Opposite Party: ASG KM Nataraj

Order Date: 10.04.2023 

Read Order: Download PDF