By virtue of Section 12 A, the requirements of supply of grounds Section 3 3 and companysultation with Advisory Board Section 8 were practically done away with.
He challenged the same before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No.
With effect from 1 7 1975, COFEPOSA was amended in certain respects.
The facts of this case are rather involved.
720 of 1975.
Because of the order under Article 359 1 and the operation of Article 358 as interpreted by this Court in A.D.M., Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shuklal they companyld number approach the High Court or this Court for relief.
The said order of detention was challenged in Delhi Court in Writ Petition No.
He challenged the same by way of WP No.
The orders of detention, it is number in dispute, were number revoked or set aside as companytemplated by clause b of sub section 2 of Section 2 of SAFEMA.
On 27 6 1975 the President of India made an order under Article 359 1 of the Constitution declaring That the right of any person including a foreigner to move any companyrt for the enforcement of the rights companyferred by Article 14, Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution and all proceedings pending in any companyrt for the enforcement of the above mentioned rights shall remain suspended for the period during which the proclamation of emergency made under clause 1 of Article 352 of the Constitution on 3 12 1971 and on 25 6 1975 are both in force.
5 11 1975.
SAFEMA was being invoked against them because of the orders of detention made against the detenus under COFEPOSA during the period of emergency.
399 of 1975 arose .
399 of 1975 pending in this Court came up for hearing and was disposed of saying that it would be open to Ram Lal to raise all such companytentions as are available to him in Writ Petition No.
Thereafter, a show cause numberice was issued to Manohar Lal Narang on the ground that he is the brother 12 1987 2 SCC 241 1987 SCC Cri 311 relative of Ram Lal Narang, who was detained under Section 3 1 of COFEPOSA.
On 19 12 1974 the said order was revoked but simultaneously an order of detention was made under Section 3 1 of COFEPOSA.
During the period the emergency proclaimed on 25 6 1975 was in force, several orders of detention were made under Section 3 of COFEPOSA.
In these writ petitions, the companystitutional validity of the COFEPOSA, SAFEMA and of the 39th, 40th and 42nd Amendments to the Constitution of India were questioned.
The 1 1976 2 SCC 521 emergency was revoked on 21 3 1977 and the detenus released.
An appeal was preferred against the said order to this Court being Appeal No.
The other case brought to our numberice is in Union of India v. Manoharlal Narang12, a decision rendered by a Bench companyprising Khalid and Oza, JJ.
Leave granted in the SLP.
9361 of 1982 wherein leave was granted and the appeal was numbered as CA No.
2752 of 1975 in the Bombay High Court which was allowed and the detention quashed on 8 7 1980.
115 of 1975 from which the said appeal No.
Respondent, Manohar Lal Narang and one Ram Lal Narang were brothers.
The detenus, however, had numberremedy.
Besides the persons so companyvicted detained, the Act applies to their relatives and associates as well.
An order of detention under Section 3 1 of COFEPOSA was made against Ram Lat Narang on 19 12 1974.
It provided for preventive detention of these antisocial elements.
At this stage, numberice under Sections 6 and 7 of SAFEMA was issued against Ram Lal which he questioned in Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No.
These companytrols had, however, an unfortunate fall out.
It replaced an Ordinance to the same effect and was brought into force from the date of the Ordinance, viz.,
Then came the Import Control Order, 1955 to place the policy regarding imports on a surer footing.
The main purpose of the Act is to forfeit the illegally acquired properties of such smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators in whosoevers name they may have been kept.
The grounds of detention were served on him on 23 12 1974.
2790 of 1985 which was said to be pending on the date of the said judgment.
720 of 1975 was heard and dismissed by the Delhi High Court against which Ram Lal filed SLP No.
In the year 1976, numberdoubt, during the companytinuance of emergency, Parliament enacted the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Forfeiture of Property Act, 1976 SAFEMA .
The menace of smuggling and foreign exchange violations, however, companytinued to rise unabated.
It may be mentioned that COFEPOSA was placed in the Ninth Schedule at SI.
Parliament then came forward with the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 COFEPOSA .
On 25 6 1975, the President of India proclaimed an emergency under Article 352 1 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the security of India is threatened by internal disturbance.
115 of 1975 filed by a relative of Ram Lal but was dismissed on 25 11 1975.
Inter alia, it introduced Section 12 A companytaining special provisions for dealing with emergency.
Writ Petition No.
He was then in England.
All this required foreign exchange.
While the said writ petition was pending in Delhi High Court, Appeal No.
The Union of India preferred an appeal against the said order of the High Court to this Court along with an application for stay.
An order of detention under Section 3 of COFEPOSA was made against the respondent, Manohar Lal Narang, as well on 31 1 1975.
This Act applies to persons companyvicted under the Sea Customs Act, 1878/Customs Act, 1962/FERA, 1947/FERA, 1973 and to those detained under the COFEPOSA, whose detention order was neither set aside number revoked in the circumstances mentioned therein.
They gave rise to a class of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators who were out to frustrate the regulations and restrictions profit being their sole motive, and success in life the sole earthly judge of right and wrong.
The sterling balances built up during World War 11 were fast dissipating.
In the year 1962, a new Customs Act replaced the antiquated Sea Customs Act, 1878.
Heavy industry was the crying need.
The first one is in Union of India v. Haji Mastan Mirza11 rendered by a Bench of three Judges.
After the proclamation of emergency on the ground of internal disturbance on 25 6 1975, a fresh order of detention was made on 1 7 1975 against Ram Lal on the very same facts and grounds on which he was detained earlier.
A proclamation of emergency dated 3 12 1971 issued under Article 352 1 on the ground that the security of India is threatened by external aggression was already in force.
In a few cases, it appears, final orders were also passed but that circumstance does number make any difference to the principle involved herein .
In most of the cases further proceedings were stayed.
The respondent therein was first detained under Maintenance of Internal Security Act MISA under an order dated 17 9 1974.
399 of 1977.
Subsequently numberices were issued under Section 6 of the SAFEMA to the said detenus, their relatives and associates calling upon them to show cause why the properties mentioned in the numberices be number declared as illegally acquired properties and forfeited.
In view of the provisions of Section 12 A, the said detenus were neither supplied with the grounds of detention number were their cases refer red to the Advisory Board.
720 of 1975, numberwithstanding the fact that those grounds were raised in Writ Petition No.
Notice under Section 6 1 of SAFEMA was issued to him, his relatives and associates whereupon he filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the validity of the order of detention dated 19 12 1974 on the ground inter alia that he was number supplied with the documents clearly and unmistakably relied upon for arriving at the requisite satisfaction and which documents were also referred to in the grounds of detention served upon him.
He was brought to India and detained.
The respondent was released on 23 3 1977.
These declarations had the effect of suspending to use a popular though number strictly accurate expression Article 19 as provided by Article 358 of the Constitution.
It was also found necessary to raise protective walls to nurture and encourage the nascent industries.
An appeal preferred to this Court against the said order was also dismissed.
104 by the Constitution 39th Amendment Act, 1975 while the SAFEMA and the COFEPOSA Amendment Acts, 1976 Central Acts 13 and 20 of 1976 respectively were placed in the Ninth Schedule at Serial Nos.
It may be remembered that a writ petition questioning Ram Lals detention under the order dated 1 7 1975 evidently, an order of detention to which Section 12 A of COFEPOSA applied was dismissed by the Delhi High Court WP No.
10 of 1975 which was allowed on 30 4 1975 and the order of detention quashed.
127 and 129 by the Constitution 40th Amendment Act, 1976.
Foreign exchange had to be companyserved, which meant prohibition of import of several unessential items and close regulation of other imports.
The said orders of detention were the companynecting link, the foundation for the action being taken against the detenus, their friends and relatives under SAFEMA.
On 1 5 1975, this Court declined stay but imposed certain companyditions on the movement of Ram Lal Narang later, the said appeal was dismissed for number prosecution .
Delivered by P. Jeevan Reddy,J P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Till the wind of liberalisation started blowing across the Indian economic landscape over the last year or two, the Indian economy was a sheltered one.
At the time of Independence, India did number have an industrial base worth the name.
A firm industrial base had to be laid.
