01Facts
The petitioner challenged a COFEPOSA detention order before its execution.
He had previously withdrawn a challenge before the Delhi High Court, with liberty to raise his pleas if detained; a subsequent challenge before the Bombay High Court was disposed of because he had not been detained.
pp. 3–7The Supreme Court later dismissed his SLP, while granting liberty to pursue a remedy in accordance with law, following which he filed the present petition.
pp. 3–7The Delhi High Court had granted interim protection against execution of the detention order, but repeatedly sought verification of the petitioner’s whereabouts after the respondents alleged that he was absconding.
p. 2, 7The Court recorded that the petitioner left the courtroom during the hearing without permission when adverse remarks were made, and that the mobile number he had provided had shown no incoming or outgoing calls since activation; the petitioner admitted the latter fact.
p. 2He reappeared while the order was being dictated.
p. 802Issues
i.1. Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to consider a pre-execution challenge to a preventive detention order when the petitioner was found not to be submitting himself to the Court’s jurisdiction and was treated as absconding.
pp. 7–8ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s conduct during the proceedings, including leaving the courtroom without permission and providing a mobile number with no call activity, justified refusing that discretionary relief.
p. 203Law Applied
Article 226 jurisdiction is discretionary.
p. 7As stated in Shri Vinod Kumar Pathror v. Union of India and Anr., 2026:DHC:1749-DB, a preventive detention order may be challenged before execution, but the Court may refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction in favour of a person absconding from the law; the person may challenge the order in accordance with law after surrendering.
p. 7The Court applied this principle to the petitioner’s request for pre-execution relief.
p. 7Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Customs Act,1962 Section 154
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 Section 7
04Reasoning
The Court considered the respondents’ repeated inability to verify the petitioner’s presence at his stated address, the lack of activity on the mobile number supplied for verification, and his departure from the courtroom without permission when the prospect of dismissal and detention was raised.
p. 2, 7It found that this conduct showed that the petitioner was not submitting himself to the Court’s jurisdiction.
p. 7Applying Vinod Kumar Pathror, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary Article 226 jurisdiction at the pre-execution stage; it did not determine the substantive validity of the detention order.
p. 705Holding
The petitioner’s challenge to the detention order was not adjudicated on its merits; the Court’s refusal of relief was based on its finding that he was not submitting himself to its jurisdiction.
pp. 7–8The Court dismissed the petition and disposed of the pending applications as infructuous, with no order as to costs.
p. 8Original Court PDF
Fahim Ibrahim WaghoovsUnion Of India And Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
