UNION OF INDIA AND ORS V. MOHANLAL LIKUMAL PUNJABI AND ORS INSC 107

Name: Union of India and Ors vs. Mohanlal Likumal Punjabi & Ors (2004)

Facts of the Case: The Union of India fought the decision of the Bombay High Court to quash the cancellation of forfeiture under section 7 of SAFEMA. This case originated from detention orders made under sections of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act – (COFEPOSA). These detention orders were later withdrawn through Section 11(1)(b) of COFEPOSA… However, proceedings under SAFEMA went on and property was being forfeited. The High Court quashed the forfeiture because it held that the withdrawal of the detention orders preemptorily erased the legal foundation used to apply SAFEMA.

Issues: Do the revocation of detention orders under Section 11(1)(b) of COFEPOSA requires that all SAFEMA proceedings be declared a nullity? If a detention order is not revoked according to Section 8, COFEPOSA, can SAFEMA proceedings be carried on and for what period? Is the bar that counsel takes in the course of a case applicable, especially where statutory law points into the opposite direction?

Analysis of the Case: Section 6 of the SAFEMA recognizes those detained under COFEPOSA but only if their detention has not been terminated on specific grounds indicated in COFEPOSA such as by an Advisory Board under section 8 of COFEPOSA. Here, the Union of India contended that since the act of the detention does not fall within the exceptions provided in section 11(1)(b) of SAFEMA; the proceedings initiated before the revocation was effected were not affected. The Supreme Court stressed that in dealing with statutes provisions prevail over all the concessions and admissions made by the counsel during the proceedings to follow the law rather than a misconception. It discovered that the Bombay High Court misinterpreted SAFEMA and arrived at a wrong presumption that the forfeiture proceedings were not legal.

Court Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the judgment of the Bombay High Court and has referred it back to the High Court to decide on the issues respecting the legal and constitutional support of the detention orders anew. It compelled the High Court to address the issue in the course of six months while at the same time refraining from any further changes of status on the properties.

Impact of the Case: The case also separates the legal meaning of Section 8 and Section 11 of COFEPOSA when it comes to the use of SAFEMA. It also restates the black letter law that concessions made by counsel during the proceedings cannot supersede statutory enactments. Further the case also map out the due process ensure by SAFEMA and COFEPOSA in protecting the interest of the state and the individual. It also creates a good legal basis for applying forfeiture laws where the detention orders have been lifted.