The detention order of Rakesh Ramdas Jejurkar under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA). The order was quashed due to a lack of specificity in the grounds for detention, as it used disjunctive language ("or") without clearly indicating which specific activity was being prevented. This was seen as a failure to apply the mind, leading to arbitrariness and violating the constitutional safeguards under Article 22.

Augmentation of Foreign Exchange and Preventing Smuggling

The detaining authority must clearly specify the particular activity necessitating detention to prevent prejudice to national interests. The lack of specificity in the detention order can lead to its invalidation due to arbitrariness.

Analysis and Rationale

Non-Segregation of Activities:

The use of disjunctive language ("or") instead of specifying the particular activity mirrors issues in previous cases, such as Kishori Mohan Bera Vs. The State of W.B., leading to the order being struck down.

Requirement for Clear Satisfaction:

The detaining authority must demonstrate clear satisfaction based on specific activities. The use of "or" signifies a lack of clarity and specific direction, leading to arbitrariness.

Precedents and Legal Position:

The necessity for specific grounds to avoid arbitrariness is emphasized by the Apex Court and various High Courts, including Kishori Mohan Bera and Naresh Kumar Sachadeva. Despite other High Court rulings, the need for clarity remains paramount.

Importance of Article 22:

Preventive detention laws must strictly adhere to Article 22 safeguards. Clear, unambiguous grounds are essential for the detenu to make an effective representation against detention.

Conclusion

The lack of specificity in the detention order indicates non-application of mind, violating COFEPOSA requirements and Article 22 safeguards. Thus, the order is arbitrary and invalid.

Decision

The detention order dated 03/10/2023 is quashed and set aside. Rakesh Ramdas Jejurkar is to be released forthwith unless required in any other case. The petition is allowed.

Order

The detaining authority is directed to ensure compliance with this order and release the detenu immediately. No order as to costs.

Further Analysis

Legislative Intent and Statutory Language:

The primary duty of the Court is to give effect to the intention of the legislature. The COFEPOSA Act specifies various contingencies in disjunction, necessitating the detaining authority to provide clear, specific grounds for detention.

Comparison with MISA Act:

The MISA Act also used disjunctive language, leading to similar issues of clarity and specificity in detention orders. The Supreme Court's decision in Kishori Mohan Bera highlights the need for clear indication of the specific activity being prevented.

Specificity in Preventive Measures:

The COFEPOSA Act requires the detaining authority to specify the exact activity (transporting, concealing, or keeping smuggled goods) being prevented. The absence of such specificity results in non-application of mind, vitiating the detention order.

Result

The rule is made absolute in terms of the prayer clause, quashing the detention order and directing the release of Rakesh Ramdas Jejurkar. No order as to costs.