The Supreme Court has quashed a preventive detention order upheld by a division bench of the Kerala High Court, criticizing the bench for disregarding a prior ruling by a coordinate bench of the same court. The earlier bench had overturned similar detentions due to the non-supply of critical WhatsApp chats, which were deemed necessary for a fair defense.
The case involved Abdul Raoof, who was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Allegations stated that he smuggled gold by hiding it in refrigerator compressors shipped as unaccompanied baggage. The division bench that upheld Raoof’s detention ignored the precedent set by another bench, which had ruled in favor of co-accused individuals due to the same missing WhatsApp evidence.
The coordinate bench had previously stated that without access to WhatsApp chats in electronic form, the accused could not effectively defend themselves, thus violating their rights under Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution.
Despite this, the second bench argued that the detention was justified based on other documents and downplayed the significance of the missing WhatsApp chats. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, emphasizing that the non-supply of these chats was enough to invalidate the detention order.
Drawing on the precedent of Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008), the Supreme Court stressed the importance of judicial consistency, noting that deviations from established rulings undermine legal certainty and predictability. The court concluded that if the second division bench had doubts about the correctness of the coordinate bench’s decision, it should have referred the matter to a larger bench rather than disregarding the prior ruling.
The case, Shabna Abdulla v. The Union of India & Ors, reinforces the necessity of adhering to established judicial precedents and ensuring that all relevant evidence is provided to the accused in detention cases.
