SURJIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the challenges, to the detention order passed in respect to the petitioner on 13th October, 1988 invoking the provisions of section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act), damped on him with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods, is that the order of detention suffers from non-application of mind and was unwarranted for the reason that the passport of the petitioner had been seized on the date of incident itself, namely, on 25th June, 1988 and continued to be in the custody of authorities, and as such he was effectively prevented from indulging in smuggling and .further that the trial court while ordering release of the petitioner on bail by order dated 11th July, 1988 had imposed condition to the effect that the petitioner shall not leave the country without permission of the Court. The contention has been elaborately set out in ground 'H' of the writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Bagai has pressed only this ground at the time of hearing placing reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court, on a reference having been made in the case of Mohd. Saleem v. Union of India and others, reported as 1989 (3) DELHI LAWYER 77 (FB)(1). He submitted that the law now stands well settled so far as this Court is concerned to the effect that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not wholly immune from judicial reviewablity, and apart from examining whether or not the requisite satisfaction was arrived at by the detaining authority, if at all, the court has a duty while scrutinising the validity of the subjective satisfaction to examine the basic facts and material which influenced it in arriving at its satisfaction.

(3.) Mr. Bagai further argued that the Full Bench has categorically and in unequivocal terms, enunciated the proposition that the ground of detention must reflect the material which weighed with the detaining authority, in arriving at the conclusion, that the detention of the particular person was imperative, to prevent him from an activity, which is contemplated by one or other of the provisions of the laws relating to preventive detention. He submitted that the learned Full Bench has proceeded on the principle that apart from the fact that the question of subjective satisfaction is open to judicial scrutiny; further the court has also to ensure while examining the validity of the subjective satisfaction, that the basic facts and material which influenced the detaining authority in arriving at that satisfaction, were communicated to the detenu because these were the requirements of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.