Shabna Abdulla vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Background
After customs officials seized over 14.7 kg of smuggled gold hidden in a refrigerator compressor in unaccompanied baggage, a detention order under the COFEPOSA Act (preventive detention to curb smuggling) was issued against the alleged mastermind ("the detenue"), based partly on WhatsApp chat records linking him to a co-accused, Biju V. Joy. The detenue's sister-in-law (the appellant) challenged his detention, arguing that despite repeated requests, he was never given copies of the WhatsApp chats relied upon against him: a violation of his constitutional right under Article 22(5) to make an effective representation against his detention. Notably, a coordinate Division Bench of the same Kerala High Court had already quashed the near-identical detention orders of three co-accused (including Biju V. Joy) on this exact ground of non-supply of the same WhatsApp evidence. However, a different Division Bench hearing the detenue's case held that non-supply did not vitiate his detention, reasoning the detaining authority had other material to rely on.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the grounds of detention against the detenue and his co-accused (whose detentions were already quashed) were "almost identical," relying on the very same WhatsApp chats. Citing its own ruling in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand on judicial discipline, the Court held that when a coordinate bench of the same High Court has already decided an identical legal question on identical facts, another coordinate bench cannot simply disagree and decide differently. If it believes the earlier ruling was wrong, its only proper option is to refer the matter to a larger bench, not overrule it informally. Since the second Division Bench in this case failed to follow the binding precedent of the earlier coordinate bench on the same facts, its judgment could not stand. The Court accordingly allowed the appeal and quashed both the original detention order and its later confirmation, resulting in the detenue's release from preventive detention.
Lesson Learnt
When a detaining authority relies on specific evidence (like WhatsApp chats) to justify someone's preventive detention, it must give the detained person a copy of that material so they can properly challenge it, and courts within the same High Court must follow each other's rulings on identical facts, escalating disagreements to a larger bench rather than deciding the same question differently in parallel cases.