Name of the Court
Supreme Court of India
All Citations of the Case
AIR 1994 SC 2179 : (1995) 83 CompCas 804 : (1995) CriLJ 426 : (1994) 3 JT 583 : (1994) 2 SCALE 925 : (1994) 5 SCC 54 : (1994) 1 SCR Supp : (1994) 74 TAXMAN 469
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=296441
Facts of the Case
This case arises from the preventive detention orders issued under COFEPOSA during the Emergency period in 1975-77. The detenues were not supplied grounds of detention due to Section 12A of COFEPOSA and were prevented from challenging their detention due to suspension of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22 during the Emergency. After the Emergency was lifted, their properties were targeted under SAFEMA for forfeiture. The core challenge was whether preventive detention orders made during an Emergency can be used post-Emergency for penal actions under SAFEMA.
Law Points Raised
1. Parliament's competence to enact COFEPOSA and SAFEMA.
2. Whether COFEPOSA orders made during Emergency can justify post-Emergency actions under SAFEMA.
3. Whether detenues can challenge old detention orders once SAFEMA action starts.
4. Constitutionality of the definition of 'illegally acquired property' under SAFEMA.
5. Application of SAFEMA to relatives and associates of detenues.
6. Whether Section 5A of COFEPOSA violates Article 22(5).
Acts/Provisions/Articles Referred
• Constitution of India — Articles 14, 19, 21, 22, 359, 352
• Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) — Sections 3, 5A, 12A
• Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) — Sections 2, 6
• Constitution (39th and 40th Amendment) Acts
• IXth Schedule
Judgements Referred
• A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521
Obiter Dicta
Emergency powers must be exercised within constitutional bounds. Preventive detention orders during Emergency cannot form the sole basis for post-Emergency penal actions if not challenged then due to rights suspension.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court upheld the constitutionality of both COFEPOSA and SAFEMA. It ruled that valid detention orders under COFEPOSA—even if unchallenged during Emergency—can form the basis for action under SAFEMA. However, relatives and associates can contest the legality of such action with fresh grounds.
Final Ruling
The Court disposed of the petitions, upholding the constitutional validity of COFEPOSA and SAFEMA and their inclusion in the IX Schedule. It also clarified the circumstances under which SAFEMA may be applied to relatives and associates.
Relevant Paragraph Numbers
Judgment discussions: Paras 1–10
Issues Framed: Para 8
Final Observations: Paras 51–60