Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the right of personal liberty and individual freedom which is probably the most cherished is not to be taken away arbitrarily, in any manner, from a person even temporarily without following the procedure prescribed by law.

Court further held that once a detenu is able to satisfy the High Court under the exercise of jurisdiction Article 226 of the Constitution that the grounds of detention did not satisfy the rigors of proof as a foundational effect which has enabled him in making effective representation in assailing the order of detention in view of the protection provided under Article 22(5) of the constitution, the same renders the order of detention illegal.

Justice Ajay Rastogi led bench made these observations while dismissing an appeal filed by the State of Manipur whereby it had challenged the Manipur High Court's order setting aside the order of detention passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (the Act 1988) on the premise that the state had failed to supply the legible copies of documents which were relied upon by them while passing the order of detention under the provisions of the Act 1988.

Before the High Court, one Abdul Hanan had submitted that the non-suppliance of legible copies of documents to him by the State had taken away his valuable right of making an effective representation.

The right to make a representation is a fundamental right and non-supply of the legible copies of the documents relied upon by the authorities in passing the order of detention is in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, Hanan had argued before High Court.

Notably, Article 22(5) of the Constitution confers two rights on the detenu, firstly, the right to be informed of the grounds on which the order of detention has been made and, secondly, to be afforded an earliest opportunity to make a representation against the order of detention.

In its appeal against the High Court's order, the State of Manipur argued before the top court that Hanan had failed to question before the detaining authority that illegible or blurred copies were supplied to him which were relied upon while passing the order of detention.

However, the top court refused to accept the said submission finding it to have no substance and upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the detention order.

Case Title: THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS. vs. BUYAMAYUM ABDUL HANAN @ ANAND & ANR.