Reputation of a person is a facet of his right to life under Article 21 - If a person is sent to jail then even if he is subsequently released, his reputation may be irreparably tarnished.

Supreme Court Quashes preventive detention order against Deepak Bajaj . Detention order found illegal; Court rules in favor of pre-execution challenge based on fundamental rights

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has quashed the preventive detention order against Mumbai resident Deepak Bajaj, ruling that the order was illegal and that its pre-execution challenge was justified. The decision was delivered by Justices Altamas Kabir and Markandey Katju on November 12, 2008, in the case of Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra.

The court emphasized that the detention order was vitiated due to the non-placement of relevant materials before the Detaining Authority. These materials included retractions of confessions by key witnesses, which were crucial to the case. The retractions were made to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and before judicial authorities but were not communicated to the Sponsoring Authority or the Detaining Authority. This failure, the court noted, could have influenced the authority's decision to issue the detention order.

The judgment underscored the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that a person's reputation is a facet of his right to life. The court argued that sending a person to jail on the basis of an illegal detention order would irreparably tarnish their reputation, even if released subsequently.

The Supreme Court clarified that the grounds for setting aside preventive detention orders at the pre-execution stage, outlined in the case of Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia, are illustrative and not exhaustive. The court asserted that if a detention order is clearly illegal, there is no reason to compel the individual to go to jail.

This decision is a significant reaffirmation of personal liberty and judicial intervention in cases of preventive detention, where the courts can exercise broader powers than traditional British courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.

Statutory provisions:

- Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, Section 3(1)

- Constitution of India, Articles 21, 32, 226, and 227

- Criminal Procedure Code, Section 41

Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 155380