In a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court delved into the intricacies of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, shedding light on the obligations of authorities concerning the detention of individuals and the detenue's right to make a representation. The case in question involved the detention of an individual apprehended for attempting to smuggle gold and foreign currencies without customs detection.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar, dismissed an appeal challenging the detention order, emphasizing the underlying duty of authorities to serve the grounds of detention promptly. According to the court, authorities must communicate the detention order and relevant documents in a language understood by the detenue, affording them the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the detention order.

The specific case revolved around the apprehension of individuals involved in smuggling activities, leading to the detention of one individual under the COFEPOSA Act. Despite multiple attempts by authorities, the detenue, who had initially obtained bail, refused to accept the grounds of detention. A signed panchnama indicated the detenue's refusal, but he later claimed non-receipt, leading to a writ petition that was dismissed by the Calcutta High Court.

The Supreme Court highlighted the dual components of Article 22(5). Firstly, it imposed a duty on authorities to promptly serve the grounds of detention, including relevant documents, in a language understood by the detenue. This ensured the detenue's earliest opportunity to challenge the detention order. Secondly, the detenue had the right to make a representation, necessitating adequate knowledge of the basis of the detention order.

The court emphasized the importance of effective communication, whether oral or written, based on the detenue's language proficiency. In cases of refusal to accept the grounds, the detenue must be informed about their right to make a representation. Verbal communication was deemed necessary when the grounds did not explicitly state this right.

The Supreme Court noted that the detenue, in this case, was not entitled to relief due to deliberate suppression of facts. Despite being proficient in English, the detenue refused to receive the grounds of detention and approached the court with "unclean hands." The court found no procedural error by the authorities, as efforts were made to translate documents into Bengali, and the detenue was aware of his right to make a representation.

Case: Sarfaraz Alam v. Union of India & Ors.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13193 of 2023].

Click here to read/download judgment.