Gopal Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court held that there was inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Central Government in deciding the statutory representations filed by the detenus, which is fatal to the continued detention under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Court also held that the impugned detention orders were vitiated because the grounds of detention were lifted verbatim from the grounds of detention in the case of Dimple Happy Dhakad, demonstrating a clear non-application of mind by the detaining authority. This mechanical 'copy-paste' exercise rendered the entire process of passing the detention orders invalid. Consequently, both issues were decided in favour of the detenus. The Court quashed the detention orders and directed the detenus to be set at liberty forthwith, unless their custody was required in connection with any other case.

Facts

The petitioners, Gopal Gupta and Amit Pal Singh, employees of M/s. Its My Name Private Limited (IMNPL), a recognized export house dealing in gold jewellery, filed writ petitions seeking to quash detention orders dated January 21, 2020, issued under COFEPOSA. IMNPL had imported gold under an Advance Authorization Licence and fulfilled part of its export obligation. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had resumed stock related to the balance export obligation. IMNPL also exported domestic gold jewellery for exhibitions abroad, with the condition of re-import within 60 days. The detention orders were issued against the petitioners, who were employees involved in the export and subsequent re-import of gold jewellery for an exhibition in UAE. The petitions challenged the detention orders on grounds of delay in considering representations and non-application of mind by the detaining authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detention orders are vitiated due to inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the statutory representations filed by the detenus, thereby violating their constitutional right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the detention orders are vitiated due to the grounds of detention being mechanically lifted from the grounds of an entirely different case, demonstrating a non-application of mind by the detaining authority? Petitioner's arguments: - The Central Government caused inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding the statutory representations filed by the detenus, violating their constitutional right under Article 22(5). - The grounds of detention in the impugned orders were identical to those in the detention order of Dimple Happy Dhakad, indicating a mechanical 'copy-paste' exercise and a clear non-application of mind by the detaining authority. Respondents' arguments: - The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the respondents regarding the delay in representation. However, it notes that the proposition regarding delay is well-settled and the court did not consider it necessary to examine other authorities relied upon by the respondents on this aspect, implying that the respondents likely argued against the delay being fatal or provided reasons for it.