BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 3/10/1985 the officers of the Enforcement Directorate searched House No. B. 20, Gujranwala Town, Part II, Delhi and recovered certain quantity of foreign exchange. It appears that the petitioner was not immediately available. He was called and interrogated. He made a statement which was recorded by the officers of the enforcement Directorate. On 19/03/1986 an order for detention of the petitioner was made by Shri M. L. Wadhawan, Additional secretary to the government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. The petitioner was arrested on 16/04/1986 and served with a copy of the order of detention. Grounds of detention were served on him four days later. On 12/05/1986 he was produced before the Advisory Board. He made a complaint before the Advisory Board that the copies of documents which were supplied to him along with the grounds of detention were not legible and he also placed before the Advisory Board a copy of a representation said to have been made by him for supply of legible copies of documents. There is a controversy whether this representation was made on 8/05/1986 or May 12/05/1986. From the original files produced before us we find that the representation was typed on may 8, 1986, but actually signed by the detenu on 12/05/1986. But that would not make any difference for the purposes of this case. On 19/05/1986 the Under secretary to the government of India conceded the demand of the detenu for legible copies of documents and directed the Directorate of Enforcement to supply a duplicate set of documents to the petitioner. A copy of this letter was also sent to the. detenu and was acknowledged by him on 21/05/1986. There is a controversy as regards the date on which the legible copies of documents were actually given to the detenu. According to the detenu they were served on him on 1/07/1986, whereas according to the counter-affidavit of Shri S. K. Chowdhry, Under secretary in the Ministry of Finance, the documents were supplied on 21/06/1986. It docs not make any difference whether the documents were supplied on 21/06/1986 or on 1/07/1986 since we find that even before legible copies of documents were supplied to the detenu, the detention order was confirmed on 14/06/1986. The detenu was thus clearly denied the opportunity of making a representation and there was therefore a clear contravention of the right guaranteed by Article 22, of the Constitution. The detenu is entitled to be set at liberty. We are told that the detenu is now on parole. He need not surrender.

(2.) In Special Leave Petition (Cri. ) 2306/86 special leave is granted and the appeal is allowed in terms of the above order in the writ petition.