UNION OF INDIA AND ORS V. ARVIND SHERGILL AND ANR INSC 476

Summary of Union of India and Ors V. Arvind Shergill and Anr

Facts: Harinder Pal Shergill, the husband of the respondent was arrested on 3.8.1998 at Sahar International Airport by customs authorities. He was suspected of possessing 66,217 US Dollars in foreign currency without authorization. A statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, and the foreign currency was seized through a Panchnama. He was produced before the Magistrate on 4.8.1998 and was remanded to judicial custody till 10.8.1998. He was thereafter granted bail 4 days later. On 17.11.1998, the Appellants passed a detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, stating that the organized nature of his activities indicated an intention to engage in smuggling in the future. This was challenged by his wife by filing a writ petition in the High Court, arguing that the detention was unnecessary and unwarranted. The High Court subsequently found the detention order to be hasty and lacking proper application of mind and therefore quashed the detention order.

Issue: 1.) Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the order of the detaining authority.

Holding: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and it set aside the High Court's order that quashed the detention order by the detaining authority. It upheld the validity of the preventive detention order under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA act, and also left it to the Government's discretion to revoke or enforce the detention order based on the circumstances.

Rationale: The Supreme Court based their decision on the merit of the detaining authority. Preventive detention laws like the COFEPOSA act operate on subjective basis of the detaining authority. It was emphasized that the judiciary or the courts are not the appropriate forum to evaluate whether suspicion can warrant detention. In the issue of whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting the detaining authority's order with its own, the Supreme Court held that it undermined the authority and responsibility vested in the detaining authority by the legislature. Lastly, the Supreme Court also reviewed the grounds of detention and found them relevant and reasonable to the objective of preventing smuggling under the COFEPOSA act.