Case Details: Joyi Kitty Joseph vs. Union of India (2025) 37 Centax 2 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Sudhanshu Dhulia & K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
- S/Shri Farook M. Razack, Sr. Adv., Faisal Farook, Shubail Farook, Kshitij Kumar, Sharad Kumar Puri, Advs. & Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR, for the Petitioner.
- Shri Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant challenged a preventive detention order passed against the detenu under Sections 3(1)(i) to 3(1)(iv) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, contending that the detention suffered from non-application of mind. It was submitted that allegations relating to the smuggling of foreign-origin gold, abetment of smuggling, transporting, concealing, keeping, and selling such smuggled gold were invoked in an omnibus manner. It was further submitted that the detenu had already been granted bail by the jurisdictional Magistrate in respect of the very same alleged smuggling activities subject to certain conditions intended to restrain further involvement, and that the detaining authority neither considered the existence and efficacy of such conditions nor recorded any satisfaction as to why those conditions were insufficient to prevent the detenu from indulging in further smuggling activities. The matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the detaining authority had relied upon material such as seizure of foreign origin gold and Indian currency, recovery of articles from the premises connected with the detenu, and statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 implicating the detenu, and that the ingredients of Clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 were brought out for the purpose of ordering preventive detention. The Court held that the invocation of multiple clauses could not be faulted merely on the ground of overlap between smuggling and its abetment. The Court further held that since the jurisdictional Magistrate had granted bail after considering the apprehension of continued involvement in similar smuggling activities and had imposed conditions to restrain such conduct, the detaining authority was required to examine the adequacy of those conditions. The Court held that the failure to consider the bail conditions and the absence of any recorded subjective satisfaction as to their insufficiency rendered the preventive detention unsustainable, and the detention order was therefore set aside as not in conformity with Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India — (2024) 24 Centax 99 (Del.) — Reversed [Paras 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 22]
List of Cases Cited
- Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana — (2023) 9 SCC 587 — Relied on [Paras 17, 18, 20]
- Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B. — (1975) 3 SCC 198 — Noted [Para 17]
- Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana — (2020) 13 SCC 632 — Relied on [Para 11]
- Narendra Purshotam Umrao v. B.B. Gujral — (1979) 2 SCC 637 — Relied on [Para 8]
- Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. State of Bihar — AIR 1968 SC 1303 — Relied on [Para 15]
- Rekha v. State of T.N. — (2011) 5 SCC 244 — Noted [Para 17]
- Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar — (1984) 3 SCC 14 — Noted [Para 20]
