/2022 INSC 0938/
                                                        
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).            OF 2022
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2420 of 2022)
THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.           ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BUYAMAYUM ABDUL HANAN 
@ ANAND & ANR.            ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).            OF 2022
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2603 of 2022)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
    
1. Leave granted. 
1

2. The   instant   appeals   are   directed   against   the   decision   of
the  High  Court of Manipur  dated 28 th
  October, 2021 and 16 th
September,   2021   setting   aside   the   order   of   detention   passed
under   Prevention   of   Illicit   Traffic   in   Narcotic   Drugs   and
Psychotropic   Substances   Act,   1988   (hereinafter   referred   to   as
“the   Act   1988”)   on   the   premise   that   the   appellants   failed   to
supply the legible copies of documents which were relied upon
by   the   appellants   while   passing   the   order   of   detention   under
the provisions of the Act 1988.
3. Respondent   no.   1,   in   both   the   appeals,   was   released
pursuant   to   the   order   impugned   dated   28th   October,   2021
passed   by   the   High   Court   and   the   period   of   detention   of   one
year also expired.
4.   Notice was issued by  this Court on 18 th
  April, 2022, but
no one appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1 despite service
of notice.
5. On the last date of hearing, i.e., 1 st
 September 2022, this
Court requested Ms. Prerna Singh, learned Advocate to appear
2

as   Amicus   Curiae   on   behalf   of   respondent   no.1   in   both   the
appeals   which   she   voluntarily   accepted   and   assisted   the
Court.
6. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants,   Ms.
Prerna Singh,  Amicus Curiae  on behalf of the respondent no. 1
in both the appeals as well as learned counsel for respondent
no.   2   and   with   their   assistance   perused   the   material   on
record.
7. The challenge in the writ petition originally filed on behalf
of respondent no.1 was the order of detention dated 17 th
  May,
2021   and   the   grounds   of   detention   dated   22 nd
  May,   2021
passed   by   the   Special   Secretary   (Home),   Government   of
Manipur,   whereby   respondent   no.1   was   subjected   to
preventive detention under the provisions of the Act 1988.   
8. The   main   thrust   on   which   the   writ   petition   was   filed
under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   assailing   the   order   of
detention   was   that   respondent   no.1   was   not   supplied   with
legible   copies   of   the   documents   relied   upon   by   the   detaining
3

authority   while   passing   the   order   of   detention   and   that   has
taken away the valuable right of respondent no.1 in making an
effective representation.  The right to make a representation is
a fundamental right and non­supply 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
and   placed   reliance   on   the   judgments   of   this   Court   in   Smt.
Dharmista   Bhagat   v.   State   of   Karnataka   &   Another 1
,
Manjit   Singh   Grewal   @   Gogi   v.   Union   of   India   &   Ors. 2
,
Mehrunissa   v.   State   of   Maharashtra 3
  and   Bhupinder
Singh v. Union of India & Others 4
.   
9. The Division Bench of the High Court placed reliance on
the aforesaid judgments of this Court and set aside the order
of   detention   dated   17 th
  May,   2021   passed   by   the   Special
Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur.
10. Respondent no.1 in his writ petition, para 9 and ground
(e) in particular, has stated that the documents which formed
1   1989 Supp (2) SCC 155
2   1990 (Supp.) SCC 59
3   (1981) 2 SCC 709
4   (1987) 2 SCC 234
4

the basis of the grounds of detention at pages 31, 33, 35, 37,
38  are  illegible  and  all  blurred  and  not  readable  and  as  such
respondent   no.1   could   not   make   an   effective   representation
before   the   detaining   authority   and   enclosed   the   grounds   of
detention dated 22 nd
  May, 2021 along with the petition.    Para
9 of the writ petition and ground (e) are extracted hereinbelow:
“9.       That,   it   is   pertinent   to   mention   herein   that   the
documents   which   form   the   basis   of   the   grounds   of
detention   at   page   no.31,   33,   35,   37,   38   enclosed
herewith   are   all   blurred   and   not   readable   and   as   such
the   detenu   could   not   make   an   effective   representation
before   the   detaining   authority,   therefore,   the   impugned
order   and   subsequent   orders   are   liable   to   be   set   aside.
The   blurred   and   unreadable   original   documents
furnished   to   the   detenu   while   he   was   under   detention
have been filed along with the writ petition.  A true copy
of the documents which are not readable enclosed in the
grounds   of   detention   dated   22.05.2021   is   enclosed
herewith and marked as Annexure­A/3.”
“e. For,   that   the   documents   which   form   the
basis   of   the   grounds   of   detention   and
enclosed   herewith   are   not   readable   and
could not make an effective representation
and   as   such   the   detention   order   is   liable
to be set aside.”
11. In the counter affidavit filed by the appellants before the
High   Court,   the   only   justification   tendered   was   that   all   the
relevant   documents   relied   upon   by   the   detaining   authority
were   supplied   to   respondent   no.1   and   he   did   not   make   any
5

such   request   in   his   representation   of   the   documents   relied
upon   by   the   detaining   authority   either   being   blurred   or
illegible at any stage during pendency of the proceedings until
the final order of detention came to be passed by the detaining
authority.       The   extract   of   relevant   para   no.10   of   counter
affidavit is reproduced hereunder:
“10. That, with reference to Para Nos.9 and 15(e) of the Writ
Petition,   the   deponent   begs   to   submit   that   all   legible
documents   which   form   the   basis   of   the   grounds   of
detention were furnished to the detenu.   Moreover, the
detenu   while   submitting   his   representation   could   have
sought   any   relevant   document   from   the   Detaining
Authority   as   done   in   other   cases.     However,   the
petitioner   did   not   mention   any   such   request   in   his
representation   submitted   to   the   detaining   authority.
Original   acknowledgement   receipt   annexed   hereto   and
marked as A.”
12. Likewise,  in   Writ  Petition  (Crl.)   No.15   of  2021   before  the
High Court, similar averments were made.   Extracts of para 9
and ground (e) are reproduced hereunder:
“9.       That,   it   is   pertinent   to   mention   herein   that   the
documents   which   form   the   basis   of   the   grounds   of
detention   at   page   nos.79,   81,   83,   85,   87,   89,   93,   95
enclosed   herewith   are   all  blurred   and  not   readable   and
even   then   the   respondent   No.1   furnished   incomplete
documents while furnishing the documents of ground of
detention to the petitioner (left behind most of the pages
of   documents   annexed   in   ground   of   detention).     The
petitioner has filed the documents in original before the
6

Hon’ble Court, furnished by the respondent no.1 and as
such   the   detenu   could   not   make   an   effective
representation before the detaining  authority, therefore,
the impugned order are liable to be set aside.
  A   true   copy   of   the   documents   which   are   not
readable   enclosed   in   the   grounds   of   detention   dated
22.05.2021   is   enclosed   herewith   and   marked   as
Annexure­A/3.”
“e. For,   that   the   documents   which   form   the
basis   of   the   grounds   of   detention   and
enclosed   herewith   are   not   readable   and
could not make an effective representation
and   as   such   the   detention   order   is   liable
to be set aside.”
13. In   the   counter   affidavit   filed   by   the   appellants   to   the
aforesaid   writ   petition   before   the   High   Court,   in   para   9,   the
appellants replied as under:
   “9. That   with   reference   to   Para   No.9   of   the   criminal
petition,   it   is   submitted   that   while   serving   grounds   of
detention   all   relevant   documents   were   enclosed.
Moreover,   the   detenu   while   submitting   her
representation   done   in   other   cases.     However,   the
petitioner   did   not   mention   any   such   request   in   her
representation   submitted   to   the   detaining   authority.
Annexure   R/4   is   the   true   copy   of   the   Ground   of
detention.”
14. Learned  counsel  for   the   appellants   has  not   disputed   the
proposition   settled   by   this   Court   that   supply   of   legible   copies
of   the   documents   relied   upon   by   the   detaining   authority   is   a
sine   qua   non   for   making   an   effective   representation   which   is
7

the   fundamental   right   of   detenu   guaranteed   under   Article
22(5)   of   the   Constitution.     The   only   submission   made   by
learned counsel for the appellants is that respondent no.1, at
no stage, raised any objection that the pages of the documents
relied   upon   by   the   detaining   authority   in   the   grounds   of
detention  were illegible or  blurred which, in  any   manner,  has
denied him  the opportunity  of  making  representation  and the
objection   was  raised,  for   the  first  time,  before   the  High   Court
and   not   at   any   stage   before   the   detaining   authority.     In   the
given   facts   and   circumstances,   learned   counsel   submits   that
the   interference   made   by   the   High   Court   in   setting   aside   the
order of detention is not legally sustainable and deserves to be
interfered with by this Court.   
15. Learned   Amicus   Curiae   appearing   on   behalf   of
respondent   no.   1   supported   the   order   of   the   High   Court   and
submitted   that   once   it   is   settled   that   the   supply   of   legible
copies of documents relied upon by the detaining authority is
a   sine   qua   non   for   making   an   effective   representation   to   be   a
part   of   his   fundamental   right   under   Article   22(5)   of   the
8

Constitution   and   once   this   specific   allegation   was   made   by
respondent no. 1 in the writ petition with facts and particulars
and also the pages which, according to him, were illegible and
blurred   and   that   has   deprived   respondent   no.1   in   making   an
effective representation, denial thereof was indeed in violation
of   Article   22(5)   of  the   Constitution   and   once   the  fundamental
right   has   been   infringed,   even   if   it   was   not   raised   before   the
detaining   authority,   that   will   not   take   away   the   fundamental
right conferred by law to respondent no.1 in assailing order of
detention   as   permissible   to   him   under   the   law   and   once   this
fact remains uncontroverted, no error has been committed by
the High Court in setting aside the order of detention. 
16. 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.   
17. It   is   well   settled   that   right   to   make   a   representation
implies   that   the   detenu   should   have   all   the   information   that
9

will enable him to make an effective representation.  No doubt,
this   right   is   again   subject   to   the   right   or   privilege   given   by
clause (6).  At the same time, refusal to supply the documents
requested by the detenu or supply of illegible or blurred copies
of   the   documents   relied   upon   by   the   detaining   authority
amounts   to   violation   of   Article   22(5)   of   the   Constitution.
Although   it   is   true   that   whether   an   opportunity   has   been
afforded   to   make   an   effective   representation   always   depends
on the facts and circumstances of each case.  
18. What   will   be   the   effect   when   the   detune   is   deprived   of
effective   representation   or   denial   of   supply   of   relied   upon
documents by the detaining authority has been considered by
this Court in   Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union of India and
Others 5
 as under:
“ 6.   The   right   to   make   a   representation   is   a   fundamental
right.   The   representation   thus   made   should   be   considered
expeditiously   by   the   government.   In   order   to   make   an
effective   representation,   the   detenu   is   entitled   to   obtain
information   relating   to   the   grounds   of   detention.   When   the
grounds of detention are served on the detenu, he is entitled
to   ask   for   copies   of   the   statements   and   documents   referred
to   in   the   grounds   of   detention   to   enable   him   to   make   an
effective   representation.   When   the   detenu   makes   a   request
5   (1980) 2 SCC 270
10

for   such   documents,   they   should   be   supplied   to   him
expeditiously.   The   detaining   authority   in   preparing   the
grounds   would   have   referred   to   the   statements   and
documents   relied   on   in   the   grounds   of   detention   and   would
be   ordinarily   available   with   him   —   when   copies   of   such
documents   are   asked   for   by   the   detenu   the   detaining
authority   should   be   in   a   position   to   supply   them   with
reasonable   expedition.   What   is   reasonable   expedition   will
depend on the facts of each case.”
19. What   will   be   the   effect   of   non­supply   of   legible   copies   of
the   documents   relied   upon   by   the   detaining   authority   has
been considered by this Court in   Bhupinder Singh  (supra)  as
under:
“ 1.   On 3­10­1985 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   19­3­1986   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   16­4­
1986   and   served   with   a   copy   of   the   order   of   detention.
Grounds of detention were served on him four days later. On
12­5­1986   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   8­5­1986   or   12­5­1986.   From
the   original   files   produced   before   us   we   find   that   the
representation   was   typed   on   8­5­1986,   but   actually   signed
by   the   detenu   on   12­5­1986.   But   that   would   not   make   any
difference   for   the   purposes   of   this   case.   On   19­5­1986   the
11

Under­Secretary   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
5­1986. 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
1­7­1986, whereas according  to the counter­affidavit  of Shri
S.K.   Chowdhry,  Under­Secretary   in  the   Ministry   of  Finance,
the   documents   were   supplied   on   21­6­1986.   It   does   not
make   any   difference   whether   the   documents   were   supplied
on 21­6­1986 or on 1­7­1986 since we find that even before
legible copies of documents were supplied to the detenu, the
detention   order   was   confirmed   on   14­6­1986.   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.”
and later in  Manjit Singh Grewal  (supra) as under:
“3. It   appears   that   the   appellant   had   asked   for   certain
copies   of   the   documents   which   admittedly   were   there   with
the respondent – Union of India.     Copies of the documents
were supplied, but the same were not legible.   This position
is also apparent.  It is not necessary in the facts of this case
to   go   into   the   question   whether   these   documents   were
relevant or material.”
20. Learned   counsel   also   relied   upon   the   judgment   of   this
Court   in   Union   of   India   v.   Ranu   Bhandari 6
  wherein   it   was
held in paras 27 and 31 as under:
“27.   It   has   also   been   the   consistent   view   that   when   a
detention order is passed all the material relied upon by the
detaining   authority   in   making   such   an   order,   must   be
6   (2008) 17 SCC 348
12

supplied   to   the   detenu   to   enable   him   to   make   an   effective
representation   against   the   detention   order   in   compliance
with Article 22(5) of the Constitution, irrespective of whether
he   had   knowledge   of   the   same   or   not.   These   have   been
recognised   by   this   Court   as   the   minimum   safeguards   to
ensure   that   preventive   detention   laws,   which   are   an   evil
necessity,   do   not   become   instruments   of   oppression   in   the
hands   of   the   authorities   concerned   or   to   avoid   criminal
proceedings which would entail a proper investigation.
28­30.    xxx xxx xxx
31.   Of course, in   Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran case   [(2000) 9
SCC   170]   it   was   also   made   clear   that   there   is   no   legal
requirement that a copy of every document mentioned in the
order   has   to   be   supplied   to   the   detenu.   What   is,   therefore,
imperative is that copies of such documents which had been
relied   upon   by   the   detaining   authority   for   reaching   the
satisfaction   that   in   the   interest   of   the   State   and   its   citizens
the  preventive  detention  of   the   detenu   is   necessary,  have  to
be supplied to him. Furthermore, if in this case, the detenu's
representation   and   writ   petition   had   been   placed   before   the
detaining authority, which according to the detenu contained
his   entire   defence   to   the   allegations   made   against   him,   the
same   may   have   weighed   with   the   detaining   authority   as   to
the necessity of issuing the order of detention at all.”
21. Thus,   the   legal   position   has   been   settled   by   this   Court
that the right to make representation is a fundamental right of
the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and supply
of the illegible copy of documents which has been relied upon
by the detaining authority indeed has deprived him in making
an   effective   representation   and   denial   thereof   will   hold   the
13

order   of   detention   illegal   and   not   in   accordance   with   the
procedure contemplated under law. 
22. It is the admitted case of the parties that respondent no.1
has   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, but the right
to   make   representation   being   a   fundamental   right   under
Article   22(5)   of   the   Constitution   in   order   to   make   effective
representation,   the   detenu   is   always   entitled   to   be   supplied
with   the   legible   copies   of   the   documents   relied   upon   by   the
detaining authority and such information made in the grounds
of detention enables him to make an effective representation.
23. Proceeding on the principles which have now been settled
by this Court, it was specifically  raised by the respondents in
their writ petition and the reference has been made in para 9
of   the   petition   referred   to(supra)   and   in   the   pleadings   on
record,   there   was   no   denial   in   the   counter   filed   by   the
appellants   before   the   High   Court   that   the   documents   which
were supplied and relied upon by the detaining authority were
14

legible   and   that   has   not   denied   respondent   no.1   in   making
effective   representation   while   questioning   the   order   of
detention   and   once   this   fact   remain   uncontroverted   from   the
records as being placed before the High Court in writ petition
filed   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   and   the   legal
principles   being   settled,   we   find   no   substance   in   the
submissions   made   by   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   that
merely   because   respondent   no.1   has   failed   to   raise   this
question   before   the   detaining   authority   which   go   into   root   of
the   matter   to   take   away   the   right   vested   in   the
appellant/detenu   in   assailing   the   order   of   detention   while
availing   the   remedy   available   to   him   under   Article   226   of   the
Constitution of India.   
24. In   other   words,   the   right   of   personal   liberty   and
individual   freedom   which   is   probably   the   most   cherished   is
not,   in   any   manner,   arbitrarily   to   be   taken   away   from   him
even   temporarily   without   following   the   procedure   prescribed
by law and once the detenu was able to satisfy while assailing
the   order   of   detention   before   the   High   Court   in   exercise   of
15

jurisdiction   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   holding   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   and   we   find   no
error   being   committed   by   the   High   Court   in   setting   aside   the
order of preventive detention under the impugned judgment.  
25. Consequently, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. 
26. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
…………………………….J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
NEW DELHI
OCTOBER 19, 2022.
16