DROPTI DEVI & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DROPTI DEVI & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA is constitutionally valid and empowers authorities to make detention orders against persons acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange, irrespective of whether such acts are criminal offences or punishable under law. There is no constitutional mandate that preventive detention cannot exist for acts not declared as offences. The petitioners cannot challenge the order of detention until its execution.

Parties
Petitioner: Dropti Devi; Petitioner: Raj Kumar Aggarwal; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (crl.) Under Article 32 / Final Judgment
Outcome
dismissed
Legal Topics
Constitutional Validity of Preventive Detention Under COFEPOSA, Effects of FEMA on COFEPOSA, Right to Personal Liberty Under Articles 14, 19, 21, 22
Constitutional Law Preventive Detention Foreign Exchange Constitutional Validity of Preventive Detention Under COFEPOSA Effects of FEMA on COFEPOSA Right to Personal Liberty Under Articles 14, 19, 21, 22

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dropti Devi

Petitioner

Raj Kumar Aggarwal

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (crl.) Under Article 32 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA is constitutionally valid after enactment of FEMA, which does not criminalize violation of its provisions.
  2. 2 Whether preventive detention can be ordered for acts not amounting to criminal offences and not punishable under law.
  3. 3 Whether the detention order dated 23 September 2009 can be quashed at pre-execution stage.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA is constitutionally valid and empowers authorities to make detention orders against persons acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange, irrespective of whether such acts are criminal offences or punishable under law. There is no constitutional mandate that preventive detention cannot exist for acts not declared as offences. The petitioners cannot challenge the order of detention until its execution.

Court Disposition

dismissed

Orders

  • Writ petition and criminal miscellaneous application dismissed.
  • Leave to make additional prayer for quashing the detention order is rejected.