ae है et elem i, PHILLIPPA ANNE DUKE प्र | THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS’ क्र, 71982… i | [O. Cumnappa REppy, J] Conservation of Forel; ट Pe ff Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities
OS. 8 and 77 and Constitution of india, 1950, Article 22 (5). Advisory Board—Legal répratehiaiton or ‘fr i न riend} i detenu—Grant of. Sacility—When arises, oe v wi Detention order—Representation of the detenu to the Central Government— at is—Bout De Papiere to Prime Mintster—Petitions memorial to Minister— Whether statutory representation.
है न The two petitioners who were British nationals and friends and collabora- tors in smuggling enterprises were detained under the provisions of the Conserva- “on of Foreign Exchange and Prevention
of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 for smuggling electronic equipment and goods worth several lakhs of tupees in secret .compartments and hidden cavities of a Mercedez Benz van. The High Court dismissed their petitions for release from detention, In their writ
petitions under Article it was contended that ; (1) the representation made by them to the Centra] Government to revoke the orders of detention as 1008 back as March 1982 remained undisposed of and oa this ground alone bey were entitled to be
released; (2) the Bout De Papier presented to the Prime Minister of India during her visit to England pointing out that the order FR of detention passed against the petitioners might
be lifted and the deteaus be cither released or charged and brought to trial without delay, had not been dis- been denied the right to be represented before the bosed of; and (3) that they bad
Te कपिल मत नल सन Advisory Bourd by ao Advocate or at least by Mae tio denied a ceanies to make ao appropriate and effective representation to the Advisory Board. Dismissing the petitions,
HELD है (1) Representations from whatever source aie we €ver officer of one or other department of the eon, tao fepresentations to the Government under the CO Minister during her visit to
he Prime ted to the ry by (2) The Bout De Papier eT es d to the External Affairs Minist Britain and the subsequent reminder q gt i ee ‘laced and Jined, as it were, [1982] 3 s.c.p.
the British High Commission are not representations to the Central Government, They were merely diplomatic communications between the Governments of the two countries which will be answered through appropriate diplomatic channels in proper time.
Such diplomatic communications between one country and another cannot be treated as representations to the statutory authorities functioning under the COFEPOSA. [771 G-H; 772 A-E]
_ 3(i) The Advisory Board consisting of three Judges of the High Court considered it unnecessary and inadvisable to allow legal representation to the detenus. That was a matter for decision
of the Advisory Board and this Court would not be justified to substitute its judgment in place of the Boards judg- ment, [774 C] (ii) A ‘friendly’ representation would have been provided by the Board
had it been demanded. But it was not for the Advisory Board to offer ‘friendly’ representation to the detenus without being asked for. [774 D-E] In the instant case the order of detention made
on January 7, 1982 was considered by the Advisory Board on February 8, 1982 and its report showed that the detention was justified. [775 C-D] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION; Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 27!-272 of 1982.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) Ram Jethmalani and Miss Rani Jethmalani for the Petitioner. R.K. Garg and A.V. Rangam, for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
_CHINNAPPA Reppy, Richard Beale and Paul Duncan Zawadzki, two British nationals, said to be friends and collabora- tors in smuggling enterprises are now under detention under the’
Provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, Richard Beale arrived at Madras from Singapore on December 11, 1981, He brought with hin a Mercedez
Benz van. On examination by the customs authorities. the van was found to have secret compartments and hidden cavities: It was with all manner of electronic equipment hs Ms rupees. Richard Beale was interro-
ement. ile was arrested and produced before eed meals Magistrate of Madras. His friend and arrived in lodia Pgs sag Zawadzki, who had separately was also intero बाद, कम दि to contact
Richard Beals. siifaa Hlexi 66, later arrested and produced before the Metro- Pp Sgistrate. Orders of detention under the COFEPOSA and goods worth several Jak gated and made a statemen
ark, oem, PHILLIPPA ANNE ४, TAMIL NADU (Chinnoppa Reddy, 2) 79) were made against both of them on January 7, 1982 and grounds of detention were duly served on them. The detenus moved the
High Court of Tamil Nadu for their release from detention, but their applications were dismissed. They have now come ms this Court seeking Writs of Habeas Corpus under Art. 32 of the
Constitution, The two petitions were argued {together by Shri Jeth- malant and they may be convenienty disposed of by & single order.” The first submission of the learned Counsel was
that the representation made by the detenus to the Central Government to _ revoke the orders of detention so long back as March, 1932 remain- ed undisposed of till this day and on that ground alone, the
detenus were entitled to be~ released. Shri Jethmalani drew my ' attention 099. 11 of the COFEPOSA which enables the Central Government to revoke or modify an order of detention made
by .the State Government or its officers and to the decisions of this Court laying down that delay by the Central Government im dealing with representations of the detenu would also
entail the detention invalidating itself. Apart from the fact that there is no proper foundation for the submission, Lam not satisfied that there is any merit in the submission. The Writ
Petitions were filed on March 12, 1982 and there was then no hint of this submission. The counter-affidavit on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu was filed on April 5, 1982, Thereafter,
the clerk of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has sworn to an ellidavit mentioning the facts giving rise to the present Ppl appears from the affidavit that wheo the Prime oes ° owe
was recently in Baglaad, 3 pee cents Pear en a delegation accompanying er, ड़ Duncaa Zawadzki tion without trial of Richard Be i at 1 गहरे! and We and suggesting that the oo Te ता डा
com tel os cant detenus either released oF charged aoe © High Commission in bat the British Hi delay. It further appears f dd al Affairs, Sore a India also 8601 De Papiere preseated
to India, aad nae pene ia Britain during her visit to that the pee iene to Shri Jethmalapi, the Bout De st gel ci op "Minister"s delegation in Britaio and the subsequen eee _ सात High Commission
constitute a see reminder by t eevee Government demanding their rian tation to the terms of the provisions of the राह सो न nag Saar that a Bout De Papier and the reminder, diplomatic
no dou OQ Hi i पर [1982] 8.¢ ९. communications that they are between the Governments of the ‘two countries, will be attended to and answered through appro- priate diplomatic channels
in proper time and with necessary. expedition. _ But | find it difficult to treat such diplomatic communi- cations between one country and another as representations to the statutory
authorities functioning under the COFEPOSA, as representations. which require immediate consideration by the statutory authorities and which if aot considered immediately, would entitle
the detenus to be set at liberty. Nor is it possible to treat the countless petitions, memorials and representations which are everywhere presented to the Prime Minister and other Minis-
ters as statutory appeals or petitions, statutorily obliging them to consider and dispose of such appeals and petitions in the manner provided. by statute. No doubt the Prime Minister and other:
Ministers, as leaders in whom the people have reposed faith and confidence, will deal with such appeals and petitions with due and deserved despatch. But quite obviously that will
not be because hey are discharging statutory obligations. It is not also possible to treat representations from whatever source addressed to whomso- ever officer of one or other department
of the Government as a representation ‘to the Government requiring the appropriate authority under the COFEPOSA to consider’ the matter. I do not consider that the Bout de Papiere
presented to the Prime Minister during her visit to Britain and the subsequent reminder: addsesed to the External Affairs Ministry by the British High Commission are representations to the Central Government which are
required to be dealt with in the manner provided by the COFEPOSA It was next submitted by the learned Counsel that the Chief Minister, who according to the Rules of Business of the
Government of Taniil Nadu, was required to deal with matters telating to preventive detention neither applied his mind to the making of the orders of detention, nor ,considered the representa-
tion of the detenus himself. The relevait files have been produced by the learned Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu and on perusing them, find no substance in the submission of the
‘learned Counsel. — The submission which was most strenuously Urged by the learned counsel was that the detenus had been denied the right to PHILLIPPA ANNE vy. TAMIL NADU (Chinnappa Reddy, J.)
be represented before the Advisory Board by an Advocate or at least by a friend and that they were thus denied the right to make a proper and effective representation to the Advisory Board.
This was sufficient, said the learned Counsel, to vitiate the detention. The learned Counsel urgkd that the detenus were foreigh nationals and they-were under a handicap being ignorant
of the laws and procedurés of this country. To deny legal representation to them was an unreasonable exercise of the discretion vested in the Advisory ~ Board to permit or not to permit
legal representation. According to the learned Counsel, this was a clear case where legal representa- tion should have been permitted. “In any case, it was urged, the detenus ought to have been offered at least ‘friendly’
representation, if not legal representation. Reliance was placed upon the following observations of the Constituyjon Bench ia A.K. Roy vy, Union of India :() “Another aspect of this matter which
needs to be mentioned is that the embargo on the appearance of legal practitioners should not be extended so as to prevent the detenu from being aided or assisted by friend who, in
truth and substance, is not a legal practitioner. Every person whose interests are adversely affected asa result of the proceedings which have 8 serious import, is entitled to be heard in those proceedings and be assisted bya friend.
A detenu, taken straight from his cell to the Board’s room, may lack the ease and composure to present his point of view. He may be “tongue-tied, nervous, confused or wanting in intelligence’
(see Pett v. Greyhound Racing Association Ltd., 1969, 1 QB 125), and if justice is to he done, he must at least have the help of a friend who can _ assist him to give coherence to
his stray and wandering ideas, Incarceration makes a man and his thoughts dishe- velled. Just as a pergsgn who is dumb ig entitled, as he must, to be represented by a person who has speech,
even 80, a person who finds himself unable to present his own case is entitled to take the aid and advice of a person who is better situated to appreciate the facts of the case and the language of the
law. Yt may be that denial of legal representation is not denial of natural. justice (1) ALR. 1982 S.C. 710. कि [1988] 3 8.०.४. | per se, and, therefore, if a statute excludes that
faci- lity expressly, it would not be open to the Tribunal to allow it. Fairness, as said-by Lord Denning M.R., in Maynard v. Osmond [197] 1 QB 240, 253, can be obtained without legal,representation.
But, it is not fair, and the statute does not exclude that right, that the detenu should not even ” be allowed to take the aid of a friend. Whenever demanded, the Advisory Boards must grant that facility.”
In the present case, the Advisory Board consisting of three Judges of the High Court of Taniil-Nadu considered it unnecessary and inadvisable to allow legal representation to the detenus
It was a matter for the decision of the Advisory Board and-I do not think I will be justified in substituting my judgment in the place of their judgment. The detenus were heard personally by
the Advisory Board. After seeing and hearing them personally also, the Board did not feel it nécessary- to provide. legal representation to them which they would certainly have done if they had thought .that the detenus appeared to require such representation. Regarding
representation by a friend, there was never any such demand by the detenus. ‘friendly’ representation would certainly have been provided if-it had been so demanded. It was not. for
the Advisory Board to offer ‘friendly’ representation to the detenus even if the Affidavit of Shri Thiru Bhaskaran that representation not only by a lawyer, but by a friend was also considered
not necessary. by the Advisory Board, it was argued that the Advisory Board had, without warrant, refused even friendly representation. Shri Thiru Bhaskaran was speaking for the State of Tamil Nadu and not for the
‘Advisory Board. I have perused the file of the Advisory Board which was produced before mé and I have also perused the communications addressed by the Advisory Board to the Government of Tami Nadu and to the detenus.
I do not find the slightest hint of a demand 07 ‘friendly’ representation or its denial anywhere. The Advisory Board was neither asked nor did the Board deny any ‘friendly representation
A‘charge was made against the Advisory Board that there was inequality of treatment. It was said that while. the detaining authority was allowed to be represented by its.officers and advisers, the detenus were allowed no
representation. There is no substance latter did not ask for it. Relying upon a sentence in the counter- PHILLIPPA ANNE y. TAMIL NADU (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) in this charge. From the affidavit of the Chairman of the Advisory:
Board, I find that all that happened was that some customs officers _ were allowed to be present in the. corridor'so as to enable them to produce the relevant files whenever required for
perusal by the ~ Board. The charge of inequality of treatment is, therefore, baseless, ay x Yet another submission of the. learned Counsel was that the Advisory Board failed to consider the question whether the deten-
tion continued 10 0६. justified on :the date of the report of the Advi- sory Board, even if it was justified on the date of the making of the order of detention, The order of detention
was made on 7.1:82 and the consideration by the Advisory Board was on 8.2.82. The passage of time was not so long nor had any circumstances intervened to justify any compartment-wise’ consideration
of the justification for ~ the detention on the date of the making of the order of detention and on the date of the réport of the Advisory Board. In the ciscumstances of the case,I think that the report of the Advisory Board that. there was sufficient cause for ‘the detention of Richard Beale. and
Paui Duncan Zawadzki necessarily implied that the detention was found by the Board to be justified on the date of its report.as also on the date of the making of the order of detention. A complaint was also made that the. Advisory Board carried on its correspondence with the detenus through the Government.” This, it was stated, gave rise
to a suspicion that everything was done by the Board at the behest or in ‘consultation with the Government. This complaint is wholly unjustified. As already mentioned by me, the Advisory Board consisted of three Judges
of the High Court of Tamil Nadu and as explained by the Chairman in his Affidavit, the correspondence etc. is carried.on through the Government because the Board has no separate administrative office of its own. All the
points urged on behalf of the detenus fail and the petitions are, therefore,. dismissed. ह _NLV.K, Petitions dismissed. है