High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition quashing a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act due to an unexplained seven-day delay in considering the detenu's representation, holding such delay vitiated the continued detention.
Detention order dated 24.8.2015 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 : 21.4.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
H.C.P.No.3211 of 2015
Manju ... Petitioner
Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to the Government Department of Prohibition & Excise (Home) Fort. St. George, Chennai – 600 009 2. The Commissioner of Police Salem city Police Commissioner office, salem city ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the impugned order in C.M.P.No.68/Goonda/Salem city/2015 dated 24.8.2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct to the respondents to produce the detenu Thambi @ Mohan, son of Subramani, aged about 33 years now confined at Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambi Durai Additional Public Prosecutor
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Thambi @ Mohan, aged 33 years, son of Subramani, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in C.M.P.No.68/Goonda/Salem city/2015 dated 24.8.2015, 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.
from the detaining authority on 1.3.2016. However, remarks have been received by the Government only on 10.3.2016, i.e., after a delay of 9 days and the case of the detenu was dealt with by the Minister concerned on 24.3.2016 and the rejection letter was prepared on 28.3.2016. From the above, it is clear that in between 1.3.2016 and 10.3.2016, [i.e., the intermittent days between the remarks called for and the remarks received] there is a delay of 9 days. Even if we give concession to the 2 intervening holidays including Government holidays, namely, 5.3.2016 and 6.3.2016, still there is a delay of 7 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 7 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
State of Tamil Nadu
Department of Prohibition & Excise (Home)
Fort. St. George, Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Salem city Police
Commissioner office, salem city.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Salem.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public(Law & Order),
Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.3211 of 2015
SV(CO)
CA(27/05/2016)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether unexplained delay of 7 days in considering the detenu's representation under Article 22(5) vitiates the detention order under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act.
Whether the failure by authorities to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in disposing of a representation of a detainee renders the continued detention impermissible.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶15
Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 1 SCC 417 · Who else cites this
Ummu Sabeena vs. State of KeralaRelied on¶25
Ummu Sabeena vs. State of Kerala - 2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manju
State of Tamil Nadu
Commissioner of Police Salem
M. Jaichandren
S. Nagamuthu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
