{"id":1854,"date":"2024-11-04T06:07:11","date_gmt":"2024-11-04T06:07:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/?p=1854"},"modified":"2025-03-12T16:18:26","modified_gmt":"2025-03-12T10:48:26","slug":"ichhu-devi-choraria-v-union-of-india-ors-1980","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/ichhu-devi-choraria-v-union-of-india-ors-1980\/","title":{"rendered":"Ichhu Devi Choraria v. Union of India &#038; Ors 1980 (Case Summary)"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"1854\" class=\"elementor elementor-1854\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-917020f elementor-section-full_width elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"917020f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-5aa9190\" data-id=\"5aa9190\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-inner-section elementor-element elementor-element-0360c7f elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"0360c7f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-inner-column elementor-element elementor-element-f71d46a\" data-id=\"f71d46a\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-d818b36 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"d818b36\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<h1 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Ichhu Devi Choraria v. Union of India &amp; ORS 1980 AIR 1983\n(Case Summary)<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-e246dd3 elementor-widget elementor-widget-image\" data-id=\"e246dd3\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"image.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1312\" height=\"736\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-legal-document-with-the-case-law-ichhu-devi-chor-6XId8QhMTISi8iqCde3-kA-aBnpGo4XQoOs6SbWvS27Vg.jpeg\" class=\"attachment-1536x1536 size-1536x1536 wp-image-1862\" alt=\"ICHHU DEVI CHORARIA v. UNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-legal-document-with-the-case-law-ichhu-devi-chor-6XId8QhMTISi8iqCde3-kA-aBnpGo4XQoOs6SbWvS27Vg.jpeg 1312w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-legal-document-with-the-case-law-ichhu-devi-chor-6XId8QhMTISi8iqCde3-kA-aBnpGo4XQoOs6SbWvS27Vg-300x168.jpeg 300w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-legal-document-with-the-case-law-ichhu-devi-chor-6XId8QhMTISi8iqCde3-kA-aBnpGo4XQoOs6SbWvS27Vg-1024x574.jpeg 1024w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-legal-document-with-the-case-law-ichhu-devi-chor-6XId8QhMTISi8iqCde3-kA-aBnpGo4XQoOs6SbWvS27Vg-150x84.jpeg 150w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-legal-document-with-the-case-law-ichhu-devi-chor-6XId8QhMTISi8iqCde3-kA-aBnpGo4XQoOs6SbWvS27Vg-768x431.jpeg 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1312px) 100vw, 1312px\" title=\"\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-0d9ee86 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"0d9ee86\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Preventive detention lies at a crucial juncture between state\u2019s security and constitutional rights of the individuals, emphasizing the role of procedural fairness as a non-negotiable element. The present landmark case of Ichhu Devi Choraria vs. Union of India serves as a reminder of this importance ,particularly regarding the protection enshrined under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 3(3) of <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">[COFEPOSA Act].<\/span><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 ez-toc-wrap-left counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-custom ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/ichhu-devi-choraria-v-union-of-india-ors-1980\/#Facts_of_Ichhu_Devi_Choraria_v_Union_of_India\" >Facts of Ichhu Devi Choraria v. Union of India\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/ichhu-devi-choraria-v-union-of-india-ors-1980\/#Issues_framed\" >Issues framed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/ichhu-devi-choraria-v-union-of-india-ors-1980\/#Judgment_of_Ichhu_Devi_Choraria_v_Union_of_India\" >Judgment of Ichhu Devi Choraria v. Union of India\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/ichhu-devi-choraria-v-union-of-india-ors-1980\/#Click_here_to_Read_the_Judgment\" >Click here to Read the Judgment<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_Ichhu_Devi_Choraria_v_Union_of_India\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Facts of Ichhu Devi Choraria v. Union of India\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Governor of Maharashtra issued a detention order against the detenu under the <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">[COFEPOSA Act], aiming to prevent him from smuggling goods and abetting smuggling activities.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">On 4 June 1980, the detenu was detained and served with the detention order, along with the grounds for his detention which included references to numerous documents, statements, and two tape-recorded conversations.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The detenu made multiple requests for copies of the materials referenced in the ground of his detention, particularly the tapes, to establish that the voice recorded on the tapes was not his, but he experienced significant delays in receiving them.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">He submitted representations to the Advisory Board, the Central Government and the Deputy Secretary, seeking revocation of the detention order, emphasizing that his requests for the tapes had been repeatedly ignored, making it impossible for him to effectively present his case before the Advisory Board.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Until 11 July 1980, he did not receive copies of the documents and statements and copies of the tapes were provided even later, on 20 July 1980.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">On 11 July 1980, the Under Secretary reviewed the detenu\u2019s representations challenging his detention and recommended rejection of his plea for revocation of the detention order, the recommendation was supported by the Deputy Secretary and the Secretary.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">On 10 July 1980, detenu\u2019s mother filed a writ petition under Article 32 in the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the detention.<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_framed\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Issues framed<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the delay in providing copies of documents, statements, and tapes to the detenu violated his right under Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution?<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment_of_Ichhu_Devi_Choraria_v_Union_of_India\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Judgment of <\/b><b>Ichhu Devi Choraria v. Union of India\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The court analyzed Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The court interpreted the phrase &#8220;grounds on which the order has been made&#8221; in Article 22(5) and Section 3(3) to encompass not only the reasons for detention but also all relevant documents, statements, and materials relied upon. Further, while Article 22(5) mandates communicating the grounds \u201cas soon as possible,\u201d Section 3(3) of COFEPOSA Act expressly provides the timeframe within which the authority has to provide the grounds i.e. within 5 days in ordinary situations, and 15 days in extraordinary circumstances. The court observed that the copies of the crucial evidence were provided to the detenu on 11 July 1980 and 20 July 1980 &#8211; which exceeded the timeframe prescribed by COFEPOSA Act. It concluded that providing these materials in a timely manner is crucial for the detenu to prepare an effective representation.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court held that the continued detention of detenu after 19 June 1980 (fifteen days after his detention) was illegal and void due to the detaining authority&#8217;s failure to comply with the procedural safeguards outlined in Article 22(5) and Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act. The court further emphasized that the detaining authority must act with reasonable expedition in supplying documents, and adherence to these safeguards is crucial in cases of preventive detention, where liberty is denied without trial. Even potential guilt does not excuse procedural violations. The court, further held that<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> the right to be supplied copies of the documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention without undue delay flows directly as a necessary corollary from the right conferred on the detenu to be afforded the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the detention, because unless the former right is available, the latter cannot be meaningfully exe<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">rcised. Therefore, <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">the court ordered the immediate release of the detenu.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Click_here_to_Read_the_Judgment\"><\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/ICHHU-DEVI-CHORARIA-v.-UNION-OF-INDIA-ORS-1980-Judgment.pdf\"><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>Click here to Read the Judgment<\/strong><\/span><\/a><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-8af0c99 elementor-widget elementor-widget-pdfjs-viewer\" data-id=\"8af0c99\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"pdfjs-viewer.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<iframe width=\"\" height=\"700\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdfjs-viewer-for-elementor\/\/assets\/js\/pdfjs\/web\/viewer.html?file=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/ICHHU-DEVI-CHORARIA-v.-UNION-OF-INDIA-ORS-1980-Judgment.pdf\"><\/iframe>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Preventive detention lies at a crucial juncture between state\u2019s security and constitutional rights of the individuals, emphasizing the role of procedural fairness as a non-negotiable element. The present landmark case of Icchu Devi Choraria vs. Union of India serves as a reminder of this importance <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":1862,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[8],"tags":[39,38],"class_list":["post-1854","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-constitutional-law","tag-article-22","tag-cofeposa-act"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1854","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1854"}],"version-history":[{"count":72,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1854\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4395,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1854\/revisions\/4395"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1862"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1854"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1854"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1854"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}