Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law and Order) Revenue Department & Anr. v. Kamala & Anr.
Background
A detenu's detention order under the COFEPOSA Act (preventive detention for smuggling-related activities) was quashed by the Madras High Court on the ground that the order did not specify a fixed period of detention. The High Court relied on an older two-judge Supreme Court decision (Bhiryani) and a related Madras High Court ruling, both holding that silence on the detention period was fatal to such orders. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the detention period itself had already lapsed, but the Tamil Nadu Government still wanted the legal position corrected.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court noted that the two-judge decision in Bhiryani, on which the High Court relied, had already been overruled by a later three-judge bench in T. Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu, which held that COFEPOSA does not require specifying a detention period: the absence of a specified period simply means detention runs for the maximum period allowed by law. Since the High Court's reasoning rested entirely on the overruled Bhiryani position, its judgment quashing the detention order was set aside, and the detention order was formally revived (though practically moot since the detention period had already expired). The Court clarified the correct legal position for future cases even though no practical relief followed, and disposed of the appeal.
Lesson Learnt
A detention order under preventive-detention laws like COFEPOSA is not automatically invalid merely because it does not state a specific time period: in the law's silence, detention is understood to run for the maximum period the statute allows.