If High Court’s Division Bench Is Of View That Earlier Decision Of Coordinate Bench Is Incorrect, Only Option Available Is To Refer Case To Larger Bench: SC
The Supreme Court elucidated that if the Division Bench of the High Court is of the view that the earlier decision of the Coordinate Bench is not correct in law, the only option available is to refer the case to a larger Bench.
The Court was dealing with a criminal appeal filed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court by which it dismissed the petition of the sister-in-law of the detenu and upheld the detention order issued against the detenu under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA).
The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “We are of the considered opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order should have followed the view taken by another Division Bench of the same High Court specifically when the grounds of detention and the grounds of challenge were identical in both the cases. In the event, the Division Bench of the High Court was of the view that the earlier decision of the Coordinate Bench of the same High Court was not correct in law, the only option available to it was to refer the matter to a larger Bench.”
Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant appeared for the appellant while Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi appeared for the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
In 2021, the unaccompanied baggage of a person was checked and inside the compressor of refrigerator amongst the baggage, contraband gold weighing 14,763.30 grams valued at Rs. 7,16,16,768/- was found and seized. The statements of co-accused persons were recorded whereby they admitted that the detenu who was residing in Dubai was running a cargo handling and forwarding business and was scouting passengers who had unaccompanied cargo to be sent to India. It was stated that the detenu would send contraband gold concealed in compressors of refrigerators along with unaccompanied baggage. Thereafter, detention orders under Section 3 of COFEPOSA were issued against the three co-accused persons and they were arrested. They challenged the same before the High Court via writ petitions.
Later, the detenu reached India and he repeatedly wrote letters/issued reminders to the Director General (DG), Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB) as well as the Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA, stating that he has not received any information of a detention order issued against him. However, he was arrested in 2022 and then he sought various documents that were provided to him and also sought audio recordings of the voice messages on WhatsApp. However, his request was rejected. The Division Bench allowed the writ petitions of the co-accused persons and held that the non-supply had vitally affected the right of the detenus under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and therefore, the detention order was bad. However, it dismissed the writ petition of the appellant and being aggrieved, she approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “When the Coordinate Bench of the same High Court based on same grounds of detention and on the basis of the same material, which was relied on by the detaining authority, had come to a considered conclusion that non-supply of certain documents had vitiated the right to make an effective representation of the detenus, another Coordinate Bench could not have ignored the same.”
The Court added that the second Division Bench sought to justify its decision by holding that the findings in the case of Nushath Koyamu v. Union of India and Others [2022 (3) KLT 885] and other connected matters would not be applicable to it since the detaining authority had also taken into consideration the other material while arriving at its subjective satisfaction. However, it said that if that was so in the case of present detenu, that was also so in the cases of other detenus.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and quashed the detention orders.
Cause Title- Shabna Abdulla v. The Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 612)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant, AOR Aanchal Tikmani, and Advocate Kaushitaki Sharma.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi, AORs Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Advocates Anu K Joy, and Alim Anvar.
