SARFARAZ ALAM versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 267, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 267 : 2024 INSC 18
Sarfaraz Alam
v.
Union of India & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2024)
04 January 2024
[M. M. Sundresh* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Validity of the detention order passed by the respondents; Detenue’s 
right to make a representation, the communication regarding the 
same if to be made both orally and in writing.
Headnotes
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of 
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – Constitution of India – Article 
22(5) – Detention order – Validity – Detenue’s right of making 
a representation – Communication thereof if to be made both 
orally and in writing – Appellant inter alia pleaded that the 
detenue was not informed/communicated regarding his right 
to make a representation against the detention order:
Held: The first part of Article 22(5) involves the bounden duty 
and obligation on the part of the authorities in not only serving 
the grounds of detention as soon as the case may be, after due 
service of the detention order and communication of the grounds 
of detention along with the documents relied upon in the language 
which he understands, but also for the purpose of affording him 
the earliest opportunity of making a representation questioning 
the detention order – The second part is with respect to his right 
of making the representation – For exercising such a right, a 
detenue has to necessarily have adequate knowledge of the very 
basis of detention order – A detenue
has to be informed that he 
has a right to make a representation – Such a communication 
of his right can either be oral or in writing – In a case where a 
detenue is not in a position to understand the language, a mere 
verbal explanation would not suffice – However, in a case where 
a detenue receives the ground of detention in the language known 
to him which contains a clear statement over his right to make
268
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
a representation, there is no need for informing verbally once 
again – Such an exercise, however, would be required when the 
grounds of detention do not indicate so – In the present case, the 
grounds of detention forming the basis of the satisfaction of the 
detaining authority were made known to the detenue and were 
attempted to be served at the earliest point of time i.e., on the very 
next day after his detention – No error in the procedure adopted 
by the respondents as due compliance was made to translate all 
documents in Bengali apart from persuading the detenue to receive 
them – In addition, the panchnama was signed by the independent 
witnesses – The detenue also read the grounds of detention and 
the relevant documents and therefore was well aware of his right 
to make a representation – The detenue is not entitled to any 
relief as he not only suppressed the facts as proved in his refusal 
to receive the grounds of detention, apart from reading them in 
detail, but also approached the Court with unclean hands – It is a 
deliberate ploy adopted by the detenue to secure favourable orders 
from the Court – A perusal of the panchnama clearly indicates the 
adequacy of his knowledge in English, as he has not only signed 
the document in English but also made his objection with respect 
to receipt of the grounds of detention – No ground to interfere 
with the impugned order passed by the High Court. [Paras 10-12,
14, 16 and 19]
Constitution of India – Article 22(5) – Duty and obligation on 
the part of the authorities – Right of the detenue of making 
the representation – Difference between the background facts 
leading to detention order and the grounds of detention – 
Discussed.
Case Law Cited
Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, [1981] 2 SCR 
352: (1981) 2 SCC 427; State of Bombay v. Atma Ram 
Shridhar Vaidya, [1951] SCR 167: AIR 1951 SC 157; 
Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra [1962] Suppl. SCR 
918: AIR 1962 SC 911 – relied on.
State Legal Aid Committee, J&K v. State of J&K, [2004] 
5 Suppl. SCR 1090: (2005) 9 SCC 667; Kamleshkumar 
Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India [1995] 3 SCR 279: 
(1995) 4 SCC 51; Thahira Haris v. Govt. of Karnataka 
[2009] 5 SCR 941: (2009) 11 SCC 438 – referred to.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
269
Sarfaraz Alam V. Union of India & Ors.
List of Acts 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Detention order; Grounds of detention; Refusal to receive grounds 
of detention; Communication of detenue’s right of making the 
representation.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 
2024.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.10.2023 of the High Court 
at Calcutta in WPA(H) No.68 of 2023.
Appearances for Parties
P. Vishwanath Shetty, R. Basant, Sr. Advs., M/s. Ahmadi Law Offices, 
Shariq Ahmed, Talha Abdul Rahman, Tariq Ahmed, Ismail Zabiulla, 
Akshay Sahay, Vibhav Chaturvedi, Advs. for the Appellant.
K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Vanshaja Shukla, Rajat 
Nair, Shailesh Madiyal, Vatsal Joshi, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Padmesh 
Mishra, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment 
M. M. Sundresh, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and 
the learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents. We 
have perused the pleadings, documents and judgments. The present 
appeal is at the behest of the brother-in-law of the detenue, who 
is challenging the validity of the detention order and aggrieved at 
the refusal of the High Court of Calcutta to set aside the order of 
detention passed by the respondents.
270
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3.	
On receiving information pertaining to a consignment containing 
gold and foreign currencies, escaping the watchful eyes of the 
customs department, four persons were apprehended. On eliciting 
further information from them, a search was conducted yielding 
huge quantity of gold, along with the recovery of foreign currencies 
of various denominations. As a consequence, the detenue was 
arrested, followed by a detention order passed by the detaining 
authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “COFEPOSA Act”). 
Prior to the said order he obtained an order of bail. 
4.	
The detention order was passed against the detenue on 05.09.2023 
after which he was subsequently detained on 19.09.2023 from his 
home, in the presence of his family members. Following the heels 
of the said order, the respondents made an endeavor to serve the 
grounds of detention along with the relevant documents on the 
very next day i.e., 20.09.2023 with due translation in the Bengali 
language. The detenue who was in a correctional home steadfastly 
refused to receive them despite persuasive attempts made by the 
Respondents. A panchnama was prepared, and before its due 
execution another abortive attempt was made to make him receive 
the grounds of detention, along with the relevant documents. The
detenue reiterated his earlier stand, however, a facility was extended 
to him to read the documents in its entirety. The panchnama was 
signed not only by two independent witnesses but the detenue as 
well. Interestingly, the detenue after signing the panchnama in the 
English language has proceeded further to write “I have refused to 
receive any document”, leading to the obvious inference that his 
so called ignorance of English was only an afterthought.
5.	
Two more attempts were made by the respondents to serve the 
documents along with the grounds of detention. After refusing to 
receive the same on the second occasion i.e., on 03.10.2023 it was 
finally received by him on 10.10.2023. Interestingly, the detenue, 
through the appellant, filed the Writ Petition on 03.10.2023 inter alia 
contending that the respondents have not served the grounds of 
detention. The Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta dismissed 
the Writ Petition inter alia holding that it was the detenue himself
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
271
Sarfaraz Alam V. Union of India & Ors.
who had refused to receive the grounds of detention, a fact clearly 
indicated and proved through the panchnama.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT
6.	
Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that 
it is incorrect to state that the detenue has refused to receive the 
grounds of detention. In any case the detenue has not been informed 
or communicated regarding his right to make a representation 
against the detention order. Both functions are mutually reinforcing 
as mandatory under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
7.	
Not all the relevant materials have been served on the detenue, such 
as the telephonic conversation between the detenue and others. The 
grounds of detention could have been served on the family members 
of the detenue even on the first occasion. There ought to have been 
an affidavit on the refusal of the detenue pertaining to the grounds 
of detention, by the official concerned. So also, on the question of 
the contents having been read over to him and being read by him. 
An order of detention being an exception, if two views are possible, 
the one in favor of the detenue should find favor with the Court. To 
reinforce the aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel have 
placed reliance on the following decisions of this Court,

●
State Legal Aid Committee, J&K v. State of J&K, (2005) 9 
SCC 667

●
Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India, (1995) 
4 SCC 51
●
Thahira Haris v. Govt. of Karnataka, (2009) 11 SCC 438
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
8.	
Repelling the contentions of the appellant, the learned Additional 
Solicitor General appearing for the respondents submitted that due 
procedure has been followed and ample opportunities were provided.
The translated version of the grounds of detention along with the 
relevant documents were attempted to be served upon the detenue 
on the very next day after his detention in due compliance of Section 
3 of the COFEPOSA Act. A panchnama was drawn in the presence of 
two independent witnesses to cover the incident of detenu’s refusal 
in accepting the ground of detention as per the extant principles 
of law. The panchnama bears the signature of the detenue with a
272
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
remark “I have refused to receive any document”, this sufficiently 
indicates that twin test enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution 
of India was duly complied with. Even in the grounds of detention 
there are adequate averments clearly indicating detenue’s right to 
make representation to the named authorities. The contention raised 
is only an afterthought and therefore the present appeal deserves 
to be dismissed. 
9.	
Despite refusal of the detenue on the first occasion in receiving the 
grounds of detention, a second attempt was made on 03.10.2023, 
and ultimately on 10.10.2023, the detenue received the ground of 
detention with all the relevant documents. These chronological events 
amply suggest the conduct of the detenue in evading to receive the 
grounds of detention. 
DISCUSSION
10.	 Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India can broadly be divided 
into two parts. Of these two parts there lies an underlying duty and 
obligation on the part of the authorities in not only serving the grounds 
of detention as soon as the case may be, after due service of the 
detention order and communication of the grounds of detention along 
with the documents relied upon in the language which he understands, 
but also for the purpose of affording him the earliest opportunity of 
making a representation questioning the detention order. 
11.	 Therefore, the first part involves the bounden duty of the authorities 
in serving
the grounds of detention containing such grounds which 
weighed in the mind of the detaining authority in passing the detention 
order. In doing so, adequate care has to be taken in communicating 
the grounds of detention and serving the relevant documents in the 
language understandable to the detenue. The second part is with 
respect to his right of making the representation. For exercising such 
a right, a detenue has to necessarily have adequate knowledge 
of the very basis of detention order. There is a subtle difference 
between the background facts leading to detention order and the 
grounds of detention. While the background facts are not required 
in detail, the grounds of detention which determine the detention 
order ought to be found in the grounds supplied to the detenue. 
In other words, the knowledge of the detenue is to the subjective 
satisfaction of a detaining authority discernible from the grounds 
supplied to him. It is only thereafter that a detenue could be in a
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
273
Sarfaraz Alam V. Union of India & Ors.
better position to take a decision as to whether he should challenge 
the detention order in the manner known to law. This includes his 
decision to make a representation to various authorities including the 
detaining officer. Therefore, an effective knowledge qua a detenue 
is of utmost importance. 
12.	 On the second aspect, a detenue has to be informed that he has a 
right to make a representation. Such a communication of his right 
can either be oral or in writing. This right assumes importance as 
a detenue in a given case may well be a literate, semi-literate or 
illiterate person. Therefore, it becomes a cardinal duty on the part 
of the authority that serves the grounds of detention to inform a 
detenue of his right to make a representation. 
13.	 While the aforesaid two rights and duties form two separate parts 
of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, they do overlap despite 
being mutually reinforcing. Though they travel on different channels, 
their waters merge at the destination. This is for the due compliance 
of Article 22(5). The entire objective is to extend knowledge to the 
detenue leading to a representation on his decision to question the 
detention order. Such a right is an inalienable right under scheme 
of the Constitution of India, available to the detenue, corresponding 
to the duty of the serving authority.
14.	 Having reiterated the said principle of law, the question for
consideration is ‘to what extent a communication can be made both 
orally and in writing’. In a case where a detenue is not in a position 
to understand the language, a mere verbal explanation would not 
suffice. Similarly, where a detenue consciously declines to receive the 
grounds of detention, he has to be informed about his right to make 
a representation. In such a scenario, the question as to whether the 
grounds of detention contained a statement that a detenue has got a 
right to make a representation to named authorities or not, pales into 
insignificance. This is for the reason that a detenue despite refusing 
to receive the grounds of detention might still change his mind and 
receive them if duly informed of his right to challenge a detention 
order by way of a representation. We may clarify, in a case where 
a detenue receives the ground of detention in the language known 
to him which contains a clear statement over his right to make a 
representation, there is no need for informing verbally once again. 
Such an exercise, however, would be required when the grounds 
of detention do not indicate so.

274
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
15.	 We would like to reinforce our position on the aforesaid exposition 
of law by placing reliance on the following decisions of this Court:
●
Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 427
“20….“Communicate” is a strong word. It means that 
sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting 
the “grounds” should be imparted effectively and 
fully to the detenu in writing in a language which he 
understands. The whole purpose of communicating 
the “ground” to the detenu is to enable him to make 
a purposeful and effective representation. If the 
“grounds” are only verbally explained to the detenu 
and nothing in writing is left with him, in a language 
which he understands, then that purpose is not 
served, and the constitutional mandate in Article 22(5) 
is infringed. If any authority is needed on this point, 
which is so obvious from Article 22(5), reference may be 
made to the decisions of this Court in Harikisan v. State 
of Maharashtra [1962 Supp 2 SCR 918 : AIR 1962 SC 
911 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 797] and Hadibandhu Das v. District 
Magistrate [(1969) 1 SCR 227 : AIR 1969 SC 43 : 1969 
Cri LJ 274].”
(emphasis supplied)
●
State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya, AIR 1951 
SC 157
“10….The question has to be approached from another 
point of view also. As mentioned above, the object of 
furnishing grounds for the order of detention is to 
enable the detenu to make a representation i.e. to 
give him an opportunity to put forth his objections 
against the order of detention. Moreover, “the earliest 
opportunity” has to be given to him to do that. While 
the grounds of detention are thus the main factors on 
which the subjective decision of the Government is 
based, other materials on which the conclusions in 
the grounds are founded could and should equally 
be conveyed to the detained person to enable him to 
make out his objections against the order. To put it
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
275
Sarfaraz Alam V. Union of India & Ors.
in other words, the detaining authority has made its 
decision and passed its order. The detained person is 
then given an opportunity to urge his objections which in 
cases of preventive detention comes always at a later 
stage. The grounds may have been considered sufficient 
by the Government to pass its judgment. But to enable 
the detained person to make his representation against 
the order, further details may be furnished to him. In 
our opinion, this appears to be the true measure of 
the procedural rights of the detained person under 
Art. 22(5).
×××	 ×××	 ×××
12…The conferment of the right to make a representation 
necessarily carries with it the obligation on the part 
of the detaining authority to furnish the grounds i.e., 
materials on which the detention order was made. In 
our opinion, it is therefore clear that while there is 
a connection between the obligation on the part of 
the detaining authority to furnish grounds and the 
right given to the detained person to have an earliest 
opportunity to make the representation, the test to be 
applied in respect of the contents of the grounds for 
the two purposes is quite different. As already pointed 
out, for the first, the test is whether it is sufficient 
to satisfy the authority. For the second, the test is, 
whether it is sufficient to enable the detained person 
to make the representation at the earliest opportunity.
13. The argument advanced on
behalf of the respondent 
mixes up the two rights given under Art. 22(5) and converts 
it into one indivisible right. We are unable to read Art. 22(5) 
in that way. As pointed out above, the two rights are 
connected by the word “and”. Furthermore, the use 
of the words “as soon as may be” with the obligation 
to furnish the grounds of the order of detention, 
and the fixing of another time limit, viz., the earliest 
opportunity, for making the representation, makes the 
two rights distinct. The second right, as it is a right 
of objection, has to depend first on the service of the
276
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
grounds on which the conclusion i.e. satisfaction of 
the Government about the necessity of making the 
order, is based. To that extent and that extent alone, 
the two are connected. But when grounds which have 
a rational connection with the ends mentioned in S. 3 
of the Act are supplied, the first condition is satisfied. 
If the grounds are not sufficient to enable the detenu 
to make a representation, the detenu can rely on his 
second right and if he likes may ask for particulars 
which will enable him to make the representation. 
On an infringement of either of these two rights the 
detained person has a right to approach the Court and 
complain that there has been an infringement of his 
fundamental right and even if the infringement of the 
second part of the right under Art. 22(5) is established 
he is bound to be released by the Court. To treat the 
two rights mentioned in Art. 22(5) as one is neither proper 
according to the language used, nor according to the 
purpose for which the rights are given.
×××	 ×××	 ×××
16. This detailed examination shows that preventive 
detention is not by itself considered an infringement of 
any of the fundamental rights mentioned in Part III of the 
Constitution. This is, of course, subject to the limitations 
prescribed in clause (5) of Art. 22. That clause, as noticed 
above, requires two things to be done for the person 
against whom the order is made. By reason of the fact
that cl. (5) forms part of Part III of the Constitution, its 
provisions have the same force and sanctity as any 
other provision relating to fundamental rights. As the 
clause prescribes two requirements, the time factor in 
each case is necessarily left fluid. While there is the 
duty on the part of the detaining authority to furnish 
grounds and the duty to give the detained person the 
earliest opportunity to make a representation which 
obligations, as shown above, are correlated, there 
exists no express provision contemplating a second 
communication from the detaining authority to the 
person detained. This is because in several cases a
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
277
Sarfaraz Alam V. Union of India & Ors.
second communication may not be necessary at all. 
The only thing which emerges from the discussion is 
that while the authorities must discharge the duty in 
furnishing grounds for the order of detention “as soon 
as may be” and also provide “the earliest opportunity 
to the detained person to make the representation”, 
the number of communications from the detaining 
authority to the detenu may be one or more and they 
may be made at intervals, provided the two parts of the 
aforesaid duty are discharged in accordance with the 
wording of cl. (5). So long as the later communications 
do not make out a new ground, their contents are 
no infringement of the two procedural rights of the 
detenu mentioned in the clause. They may consist of 
a narration of facts or particulars relating to the grounds 
already supplied. But in doing so, the time factor in respect 
of the second duty, viz., to give the detained person the 
earliest opportunity to make a representation, cannot be 
overlooked. That appears to us to be the result of cl. (5) 
of Art. 22.”
(emphasis supplied)
●
Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 911
“7. It has not been found by the High Court that the 
appellant knew enough English to understand the grounds 
of his detention. The High Court has only stated that “he has 
studied up to 7th Hindi standard, which is equivalent to 3rd 
English standard”. The High Court negatived the contention 
raised on behalf of the appellant not on the ground that 
the appellant knew enough English, to understand the 
case against him, but on the ground, as already indicated, 
that the service upon him of the Order and grounds of 
detention in English was enough communication to him 
to enable him to make his representation. We must, 
therefore, proceed on the assumption that the appellant 
did not know enough English to understand the grounds, 
contained in many paragraphs as indicated above in order 
to be able effectively to make his representation against 
the Order of Detention. The learned Attorney-General
278
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
has tried to answer this contention in several ways. 
He has first contended that when the Constitution 
speaks of communicating the grounds of detention 
to the detenue, it means communication in the official 
language, which continues to be English; secondly, 
the communication need not be in writing and the 
translation and explanation in Hindi offered by the 
Inspector of Police, while serving the order of detention 
and the grounds, would be enough compliance with 
the requirements of the law and the Constitution; and 
thirdly, that it was not necessary in the circumstances 
of the case to supply the grounds in Hindi. In our 
opinion, this was not sufficient compliance in this 
case with the requirements of the Constitution, as 
laid down in cl. (5) of Art. 22. To a person, who is not 
conversant with the English language, service of the 
Order and the grounds of detention in English, with 
their oral translation or explanation by the police officer 
serving them does not fulfil the requirements of the 
law. As has been explained by this Court in the case 
of The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar, 1951 
SCR 167 : (AIR 1951 SC 157), cl. (5) of Art. 22 requires 
that the grounds of his detention should be made 
available to the detenue as soon as may be, and that 
the earliest opportunity of making a representation 
against the Order should also be afforded to him. In 
order that the detenue should have that
opportunity, it 
is not sufficient that he has been physically delivered 
the means of knowledge with which to make his 
representation. In order that the detenue should be in a 
position effectively to make his representation against 
the Order, he should have knowledge of the grounds 
of detention, which are in the nature of the charge 
against him setting out the kinds of prejudicial acts 
which the authorities attribute to him. Communication, 
in this context, must therefore, mean imparting to the 
detenue sufficient knowledge of all the grounds on 
which the Order of Detention is based. In this case 
the grounds are several & are based on numerous
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
279
Sarfaraz Alam V. Union of India & Ors.
speeches said to have been made by the appellant 
himself on different occasions and different dates. 
Naturally, therefore, any oral translation or explanation 
given by the police officer serving those on the detenue 
would not amount to communicating the grounds. 
Communication, in this context, must mean bringing 
home to the detenue effective knowledge of the facts 
and circumstances on which the Order of Detention 
is based.”
(emphasis supplied)
16.	 On facts, we find that the detenue is not entitled to any relief as 
he has not only suppressed the facts as proved in his refusal to 
receive the grounds of detention, apart from reading them in detail, 
but has also approached the Court with unclean hands. It seems 
to us that it is a deliberate ploy adopted by the detenue to secure 
favourable orders from the Court. A perusal of the panchnama clearly 
indicates the adequacy of his knowledge in English, as he has not 
only signed the document in English but also made his objection with 
respect to receipt of the grounds of detention. We find no error in 
the procedure adopted by the respondents as due compliance was 
made to translate all documents in Bengali apart from persuading 
the detenue to receive them. In addition, the panchnama was signed 
by the independent witnesses. The detenue also read the grounds 
of detention and the relevant documents. Therefore, he was well 
aware of his right to make a
representation.
17.	 As discussed, the grounds of detention forming the basis of the 
satisfaction of the detaining authority, were made known to the 
detenue. He cannot seek all the facts, including access to the 
telephonic conversation relied on, especially when he did not exercise 
his right to make the representation. It is pertinent to mention that 
we are only dealing with the validity of the detention order and not 
a regular criminal case against the accused. 
18.	 The other grounds raised also do not merit any acceptance, in the light 
of our earlier discussion. We also find that the grounds of detention 
were attempted to be served on the detenue at the earliest point of 
time – i.e. on the very next day after his detention.

280
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
19.	 For the foregoing reasons, we find no ground to interfere with the 
impugned order passed by the High Court of Calcutta. The appeal 
stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. 
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Result of the case: Appeal 
dismissed.