SHABNA ABDULLA   [APPELLANT(S)]  Vs.   THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [RESPONDENT(S)]

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3082 OF 2024

(3JB, B.R. GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA and K.V. VISWANATHAN JJ., delivered by B.R. GAVAI, J.)

The Supreme Court ruled that a detenu can challenge a preventive detention order based on the non-supply of documents without needing to prove that withholding those documents caused prejudice. This decision overturns a January 2023 Kerala High Court ruling that required detenus to show how the lack of documents harmed their case. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not following its own prior rulings on similar cases, emphasizing that if the High Court disagreed with a previous decision, it should have referred the matter to a larger bench. The case involved a Habeas Corpus petition challenging the detention of Abdul Raoof under the COFEPOSA Act, who was detained after contraband gold was found in a refrigerator compressor. Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant represented the detenu before the Supreme Court.

The appeal challenges the Kerala High Court’s dismissal of a petition against the detention of Abdul Raoof under the COFEPOSA Act. Raoof, involved in smuggling gold hidden in refrigerator compressors, was detained on 24th August 2021. The High Court upheld his detention despite his sister-in-law’s petition. Raoof’s co-accused had their detention orders quashed after the High Court ruled that the non-supply of critical documents violated their rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. However, Raoof’s detention was confirmed by the Central Government, despite his requests for the missing documents being denied.

Mr. Raghenth Basant, Senior Counsel, argued that the Kerala High Court erred in dismissing the appellant’s petition by not considering a previous judgment from 3rd June 2022, which quashed the detention of co-detenus due to the non-supply of WhatsApp chats. He emphasized that the grounds for the appellant’s detention were identical to those of the co-detenus, including Biju V. Joy, whose detention was overturned by the same court. Therefore, he contended that the detention order against the appellant should also be quashed on these grounds.

Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India, submits that the learned Division Bench of the High Court has rightly distinguished the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the same High Court in the cases of Nushath Koyamu and other connected matters. He, therefore, submitted that no inference with the impugned judgment and order is warranted.

The Supreme Court found that the Kerala High Court’s second Division Bench erred by disregarding a previous judgment from a Coordinate Bench, which had deemed the detention orders invalid due to the non-supply of essential documents. Despite the second bench’s justification that other materials were considered, the grounds for detention and the issues raised were identical. The Court ruled that the second bench should have adhered to the prior decision or referred the matter to a larger bench if it disagreed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the detention order was deemed invalid.