Supreme Court Sets Aside COFEPOSA Detention; Says Preventive Detention Laws Cannot Be Invoked As A Tool For Enforcement Of Law & Order
The Supreme Court allowed the Appeal of the wife (Appellant) of the detenu challenging her husband’s preventive detention.
The Supreme Court set aside the detention under COFEPOSA, reiterating that preventive detention laws, an exceptional measure reserved for tackling emergent situations, should not be invoked in cases as a tool for enforcing law and order.
The Court allowed the Appeal of the wife (Appellant) of the detenu challenging her husband’s preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act). The Bench explained that the Courts are incapable of interference by substituting their own reasoning to upset the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority, especially since preventive detention law is not punitive but preventive and precautionary.
A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran held, “When bail was granted by the jurisdictional Court, that too on conditions, the detaining authority ought to have examined whether they were sufficient to curb the evil of further indulgence in identical activities; which is the very basis of the preventive detention ordered. The detention order being silent on that aspect, we interfere with the detention order only on the ground of the detaining authority having not looked into the conditions imposed by the Magistrate while granting bail for the very same offence.”
Senior Advocate Farook M. Razack appeared for the Appellant, while Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Appellant, wife of the detenu, challenged the detention Order issued under the COFEPOSA Act. The detenu was arrested based on allegations of smuggling foreign gold into India and operating a syndicate engaged in its sale. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted raids, recovering a large quantity of gold bars, coins, and cash from a couple of locations, including a shop and the detenu’s residence. Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, implicated the detenu as the key figure in the smuggling network.
The detenu was initially remanded to judicial custody and later granted bail by the jurisdictional Magistrate with conditions to prevent further smuggling activities. Despite this, the detaining authority issued a preventive detention Order which was challenged before the High Court, which upheld the detention Order.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court referred to its decision in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, wherein the Court pointed out, “preventive detention laws—an exceptional measure reserved for tackling emergent situations—ought not to have been invoked in this case as a tool for enforcement of “law and order especially when the existing legal framework to maintain law and order is sufficient to address the offences under consideration.”
Likewise, in the present case, the Court stated that it was not concerned as to whether the conditions imposed by the Magistrate would have taken care of the apprehension expressed by the detaining authority
“We are more concerned with the aspect that the detaining authority did not consider the efficacy of the conditions and enter any satisfaction, however subjective it is, as to the conditions not being sufficient to restrain the detenu from indulging in such activities,” it explained.
Consequently, the Court held, “We, hence, allow the appeal and set aside the order of detention. The detenu shall be released forthwith, if still in custody.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 327)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Farook M. Razack; Advocates Faisal Farook, Shubail Farook, Kshitij Kumar and Sharad Kumar Puri; AOR Priya Puri
Respondent: Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee; AOR Gurmeet Singh Makker
