JASEELA SHAJI [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [RESPONDENT(S)]
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3083 OF 2024
(3JB, B.R. GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA and K.V. VISWANATHAN JJ., delivered by B.R. GAVAI, J.)
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India quashed the preventive detention of Appisseril Kochu Mohammed Shaji due to a nine-month delay by jail authorities in communicating his representation and the non-supply of critical materials related to his detention. Shaji had been detained on August 31, 2023, under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) for allegedly engaging in hawala dealings and illegal currency transactions. His detention was based on grounds provided by the Detaining Authority, with instructions that he had the right to make representations to various authorities, including the Central Government.
Shaji made his representations on September 27, 2023, but the jail authorities sent them through ordinary post, which never reached the concerned authorities. The Central Government confirmed his detention on November 28, 2023, based on the recommendations of the State Advisory Board, which upheld the detention. In the meantime, Shaji’s wife filed a habeas corpus petition in the Kerala High Court, challenging the detention, but the petition was dismissed on March 4, 2024. She then appealed to the Supreme Court.
In response to the Supreme Court’s notice, the jail authorities belatedly sent Shaji’s representation via email in June 2024. However, the authorities delayed in deciding on the representation, with the Central Government and Detaining Authority rejecting it on June 11 and June 12, 2024, respectively. The Supreme Court found a further delay of 27 and 20 days, respectively, in addressing Shaji’s representation. The bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and K.V. Viswanathan quashed the detention orders, emphasizing that the jail authorities’ failure to send the representation promptly and their reliance on ordinary post instead of email demonstrated a negligent and callous approach.
The Court underscored that such delays violated Shaji’s fundamental right to a timely decision on his representation, as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution. The judges reiterated that in matters of personal liberty, authorities are constitutionally obligated to act with utmost urgency, especially given the technological advancements that enable quick communication. The Court criticized the prison authorities’ failure to adopt modern methods of communication, which led to a prolonged delay in transmitting the representation. The case also highlighted another critical issue: the non-supply of materials on which the Detaining Authority based its decision. Shaji’s counsel argued that the Detaining Authority had relied on the statements of a key witness, Ms. Preetha Pradeep, which were not provided to Shaji. The Court agreed that withholding such essential documents prevented Shaji from making an effective representation, further violating his rights under Article 22(5). While the respondents contended that even without the witness’s statements, the detention could be justified, the Court rejected this argument, stating that all materials relied upon by the Detaining Authority must be provided to the detenu to ensure due process.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the cumulative delays and non-supply of critical materials rendered Shaji’s detention unlawful. The ruling underscores the importance of timely communication and the duty of authorities to uphold constitutional rights, particularly in cases involving personal liberty.
