Oral Communication Of Grounds For Detention Doesn't Amount To Adequate Communication Under Article 22(5) Constitution: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed Criminal Appeals of the brother of the accused who along with his wife was subjected to preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988.
The Supreme Court quashed the Detention Orders saying that the oral communication even if true did not amount to an adequate communication under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The Court was deciding Criminal Appeals filed by the brother of the accused who along with his wife was subjected to preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act).
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “… it is an admitted fact that neither Ashraf Hussain Choudhary nor Adaliu Chawang knew English, the language in the orders of detention and the supporting documents. They specifically raised this issue in their individual representations dated 12.06.2024. The proposals for their detention also recorded that the only languages known to Adaliu Chawang were Nagamese, Manipuri and Hindi, while Ashraf Hussain Choudhary knew Nagamese, Bengali and Hindi. However, the authorities claimed that the contents of the orders and the grounds of detention were explained to them in Nagamese and that the same would suffice. This argument must necessarily fail in the light of the law enunciated by a Constitution Bench in Harikisan (supra). Such oral communication, even if true, did not amount to adequate communication, in terms of Article 22(5) of the Constitution.”
AOR Pranjal Kishore represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate K.N. Balgopal and ASG K.M. Nataraj represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and his wife, Adaliu Chawang, were subjected to preventive detention vide separate Orders of the Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of Nagaland. This was challenged by the Appellant i.e., Ashraf’s brother before the Gauhati High Court, which dismissed his Writ Petitions. Hence, he was before the Apex Court via Appeals. In this case, three individuals including two ladies were apprehended by the police in April 2024 in Khuzama village area while travelling in a vehicle.
Upon search of the vehicle, 20 soap cases of Heroin were found concealed in the gear lever cover. The seized Heroin weighed 239 grams and thereupon, a Suo Motu FIR was registered under Sections 22(b) and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Upon interrogation, Chinneilhing Haokip @ Neopi implicated Adaliu Chawang and stated that she had supplied Heroin earlier also to Adaliu and received money. Ashraf and Adaliu were arrested at Dimapur and were remanded to custody. Thereafter, the Detention Orders were passed against them.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, said that as preventive detention deprives a person of his/her individual liberties by detaining him/her for a length of time without being tried and convicted of a criminal offence, the prescribed safeguards must be strictly observed to ensure due compliance with Constitutional and statutory norms and requirements.
The Court noted that in this case, the proposals for detention of Ashraf and Adaliu and the documents relating thereto were quite voluminous.
“The proposal letter dated 14.05.2024 for Ashraf Hussain Choudhary's detention contained not only the proposal of the Investigating Officer but also documents in Annexures A to T, i.e., 20 documents in all. Similarly, the proposal letter dated 17.05.2024 for the detention of Adaliu Chawang enclosed not only the proposal of the Investigating Officer but also documents in Annexures A to H, i.e., 8 documents in total”, it further noted.
The Court remarked that expecting these detenus to remember what was orally explained to them over a length of time and to recall the same so as to make effective representations would be practically an impossibility.
“… the material placed on record reflects that the detaining authority, viz., the Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of Nagaland, did not even make separate grounds of detention but merely acted upon the proposals for detention forwarded to her by the Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Nagaland”, it also observed.
The Court added that the ‘satisfaction’ of the detaining authority necessarily has to be spelt out after application of mind by way of separate grounds of detention made by the detaining authority itself and cannot be by inference from a casual reference to the material placed before such detaining authority or a bald recital to the effect that the detaining authority was ‘satisfied on examination of the proposals and supporting documents’ that the detention of the individuals concerned was necessary.
“… we hold that the Gauhati High Court erred in the application of settled legal norms while testing the validity of the impugned detention orders”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the High Court’s Judgment, and quashed the detention orders.
Cause Title- Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. The State of Nagaland and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 321)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Pranjal Kishore and Advocate Madiya Mushtaq.
Respondents: Senior Advocate K.N. Balgopal, ASG K.M. Nataraj, AORs Enatoli Sema, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocates Limayinla Jamir, Amit Kumar Singh, Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Vitso Rio, Nitya Nambiar, Sharath Narayan Nambiar, Indira Bhakar, Vinayak Sharma, Vatsal Joshi, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Chitransh Sharma, Satvika Thakur, Yogya Rajpurohit, Aayush Saklani, Tanmay Mehta, and Nikita Capoor.
