Preventive Detention and COFEPOSA: Supreme Court Restores Detention Orders

The case of Union of India vs. Ankit Ashok Jalan revolves around the legality of detention orders issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The Supreme Court had to determine whether the detention orders were justified, considering procedural lapses and the necessity of preventive detention for economic offenses.

The case was originally heard in the Delhi High Court, where the detention orders were quashed. However, the Union of India challenged the High Court’s ruling, arguing that the preventive detention was necessary to prevent smuggling activities. The Supreme Court had to examine whether the procedural lapses highlighted by the High Court were sufficient to nullify the detention orders.

Background of the Case

On June 9, 2019, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Kolkata Zonal Unit, intercepted an individual named Anand at Dankuni Toll Plaza, West Bengal. He was found carrying 8 kg of gold of foreign origin, valued at approximately Rs. 2.71 crore. Upon interrogation, Anand revealed that he was working under instructions from the detenus—Ashok Kumar Jalan and Amit Jalan.

The detenus were subsequently apprehended on June 10, 2019, at a mall in Kolkata and later formally arrested on June 11, 2019, under the Customs Act, 1962. They were presented before the Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody. While in custody, the detention orders under COFEPOSA were issued on July 1, 2019, and served on them the next day.

The detenus challenged their detention in the Delhi High Court, arguing that:

There was no imminent likelihood of their release on bail.
The detention orders did not consider their retraction statements.
The detention was based on unverified assumptions.

The Delhi High Court accepted these arguments and quashed the detention orders. The Union of India appealed the decision in the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Union of India)

The Union of India contended that:

The detenus were involved in smuggling activities and posed a threat to the economy.
The Detaining Authority had sufficient grounds to believe that the detenus would engage in similar activities if released.
The subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was based on concrete evidence and could not be questioned.
The High Court erred in interfering with the preventive detention order without considering the potential impact on national security and economic stability.

Respondent’s Arguments (Ankit Ashok Jalan & Others)

The detenus challenged their detention on the following grounds:

There was no pending bail application, making the assumption of imminent release baseless.
The Detaining Authority failed to consider their retraction statements before issuing the detention orders.
Since the detenus were already in judicial custody, preventive detention was unnecessary.
The detention orders violated constitutional safeguards, particularly Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the appeal by the Union of India, restoring the detention orders. The key findings were:

Preventive detention is justified even if an individual is already in judicial custody, provided the Detaining Authority is satisfied that the person is likely to be released and resume illegal activities.
The Detaining Authority had considered all relevant materials, and the assumption of release on bail was reasonable.
Retracted statements do not automatically invalidate preventive detention if other supporting evidence exists.
The Delhi High Court erred in setting aside the detention orders based on procedural irregularities, as the overall necessity for detention was well-founded.

The Court stated:

“There was no reason for the High Court to hold that the Detaining Authority had failed to consider relevant material. The likelihood of release on bail and the potential for engaging in smuggling activities were adequately considered.”

Key Takeaways

Preventive detention under COFEPOSA is valid if the Detaining Authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual may resume smuggling activities upon release.
The existence of judicial custody does not preclude preventive detention.
Courts should not interfere with the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority unless there is clear evidence of procedural violations.
Economic offenses like smuggling have serious national security implications, justifying strict enforcement of preventive detention laws.
This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s role in balancing individual rights with the state’s interest in preventing organized economic crimes.

The judgment clarifies the legal framework governing preventive detention and upholds the state’s power to detain individuals involved in economic offenses to safeguard national interests.

Petitioner Name: Union of India.
Respondent Name: Ankit Ashok Jalan.
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Kolkata, West Bengal.
Judgment Date: 22-11-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Union of India vs Ankit Ashok Jalan Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 22-11-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Money Laundering Cases
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category