PHILLIPPA ANNE DUKE Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(SC)-1982-5-5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on May 21,1982

PHILLIPPA ANNE DUKE Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Richard Beale and Paul Duncan Zawadzki, two British nationals, said to be friends and collaborators 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 him a Mercedez Benz van. On examination by the customs authorities, the van was found to have secret compartments and hidden cavities. It was laced and lined, as it were, with all manner of electronic equipment and goods worth several lakhs of rupees. Richard Beale was interrogated and made a statement. He was arrested and produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Madras. His friend and collaborator Paul Duncan Zawadzki, who had separately arrived in India and who attempted to contact Richard Beale, was also interrogated, later arrested and produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Orders of detention under the COFEPOSA Act were made against both of them on Jan. 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 to this Court seeking Writs of Habeas Corpus under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The two petitions were argued together by Shri Jethmalani and they may be conveniently disposed of by a single order.
(2.) 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, 1982 remained undisposed of till this day and on that ground alone, the detenus were entitled to be released. Shri Jethmalani drew my attention to S. 11 of the COFEPOSA Act 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 in dealing with representions of the detenu would also entail the detention invalidating itself. Apart from the fact that there is no proper foundation for the submission, I am 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 affidavit mentioning the facts giving rise to the present submission. It appears from the affidavit that when the Prime Minister of India was recently in England, a Bout De Papiere was presented to the delegation accompanying her, expressing concern about the detention without trial of Richard Beale and Paul Duncan Zawadzki and suggesting that the detention order might be 'lifted' and the detenus either released or charged and brought to trial without delay. It further appears that the British High Commission in India also addressed the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, and reminded them about the Bout De Papiere presented to the Prime Minister's delegation in Britain during her visit to that country. According to Shri Jethmalani, the Bout de Papiere presented to the Prime Minister's delegation in Britain and the subsequent reminder by the British High Commission constitute a representation to the Central Government demanding their immediate consideration in terms of the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act. We have no doubt that the Bout de Papiere and the reminder, diplomatic communications that they are between the Government of the two countries, will be attended to and answered through appropriate diplomatic channels in proper tune and with necessary expedition. But I find it difficult to treat such diplomatic communications between one country and another as representations to the statutory authorities functioning under the COFEPOSA Act, as representations which require immediate consideration by the statutory authorities and which, if not 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 Ministers 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 they are discharging statutory obligations. It is not also possible to treat representations from whatever source addressed to whomsoever officer of one or other department of the Government as a representation to the Government requiring the appropriate authority under the COFEPOSA Act 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 addressed 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 Act.
(3.) It was next submitted by the learned counsel that the Chief Minister, who according to the Rules of Business of the Government of Tamil Nadu, was required to deal with matters relating to preventive detention neither applied his mind to the making of the orders of detention, nor considered the representation of the detenus himself. The relevant files have been produced by the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu and on perusing them, I find no substance in the submission of the learned counsel.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.