A habeas corpus petition filed by a mother for the release of her son detained under TN Act 14/1982 was allowed. The Court quashed the detention order due to unexplained delay of 12 days in considering the detenu's representation, violating Article 22(5).
Detention order dated 28.9.2015 quashed; detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 7.4.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
H.C.P.No.3074 of 2015
Kumari ... Petitioner
Vs.
Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department
Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in his office Ref.Memo No.1033/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 28.9.2015 against the petitioner's son namely Babu s/o.Settu, aged about 23 years at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan
For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambi Durai
Additional Public Prosecutor
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, Babu, aged 23 years, son of Settu, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in office Ref.Memo No.1033/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 28.9.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,
Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), branding him as a “Goonda”, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the detenu and set him at liberty.
have been received by the Government only on 28.12.2015, i.e., after a delay of 20 days and the case of the detenu was dealt with by the Minister concerned on 11.1.2016 and the rejection letter was prepared on 12.1.2016. From the above, it is clear that in between 8.12.2015 and 28.12.2015, [i.e., the intermittent days between the remarks called for and the remarks received] there is a delay of 20 days. Even if we give concession to the 8 intervening holidays including Government holidays, namely, 12.12.2015, 13.12.2015, 19.12.2015, 20.12.2015, 24.12.2015, 25.12.2015, 26.12.2015 and 27.12.2015, still there is a delay of 12 days, which remain unexplained.
6.It is trite law that the representation should be very expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without avoidable delay. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. From the records produced, we find that no acceptable explanation has been offered for the delay of 12 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.
7.In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal's case (cited supra), it has been held as follows:
"It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. Though no period is prescribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be taken on the representation, the words "as soon as may be " in clause (5) of Article 22 convey the message that the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest."
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Secretary to the Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department
Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Chennai Police
Chennai.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public(Law & Order),
Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
PUR(CO) CA(26/05/2016)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether unexplained delay of 12 days in considering the detenu's representation vitiates the detention order under Article 22.
Whether the continued detention after such unexplained delay renders it impermissible and illegal.
Whether the habeas corpus petition should be allowed to set the detenu at liberty.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil NaduFollowed¶21
Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 1 SCC 417 · Who else cites this
Ummu Sabeena vs. State of KeralaFollowed¶31
Ummu Sabeena vs. State of Kerala - 2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kumari
The State of Tamil Nadu
M. Jaichandren
S. Nagamuthu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
