Allowed

Prejith @ Suresh v. the Principal Secretary to

Madras HC24 Jul 2017HCP(MD)/105/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition challenging a detention order under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Dangerous Offenders (Preventive Release and Reform) Act. The detention was quashed due to inordinate delays in submitting remarks and considering the detainee's representation, violating procedural safeguards.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 23.12.2016 in P.D.No.86/2016 is quashed, and the detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless required for other cases.

Prejith @ Suresh Vs the Principal… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.07.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

H.C.P(MD)No.105 of 2017

Prejith @ Suresh

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu,

¶11

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶12

Fort St.George, Chenni-600009.

¶13

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,

¶14

Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil.

¶15

3.The Superintendent of Prison,

¶16

Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District.

¶17

: Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in P.D.No.86/2016 dated 23/12/2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Prejith @ Suresh, son of Jeyaraj aged about 27 years, now detained at Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh

¶21

Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J) The petitioner is the detenu- Prejith @ Suresh, S/o.Jeyaraj, aged about 27 years and detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his proceedings in P.D.No.86/2016 , dated 23.12.2016, holding him to be a "SEXUAL OFFENDER", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶24

¶25

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶26

3.Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there is gross violation of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention. The learned counsel, by placing authorities, submitted that the representation made by the petitioner was not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay.

¶27

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition. He would submit that though there was delay in considering the representation, on that score alone, the impugned detention order cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenue and thus, there is no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

The Detention Order in question was passed on 23.12.2016. The petitioner made a representation dated 21.01.2017. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 27.01.2017. The remarks were duly received on 09.02.2017. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 27.02.2017.

¶29

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 9 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and thereafter, there was again a delay of 11 days in considering the representation.

¶30

In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, [2011 (5) SCC 244], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the procedural safeguards are required to be zealously watched and enforced by the Courts of law and their rigour cannot be allowed to be diluted on the basis of the nature of the alleged activities undertaken by the detenue.

¶31

In Sumaiya Vs. The Secretary to Government, [2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145], a Division Bench of this Court has held that the unexplained delay of three days in disposal of the representation made on behalf of the detenue would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention.

¶32

In Tara Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, [1980 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (2) SCC 321], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the very detention illegal.

¶33

¶34

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 9 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 11 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶35

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in P.D.No.86/2016, dated 23.12.2016 is quashed. The detenu, namely, Prejith @ Suresh, Son of Jeyaraj, aged about 27 years, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.

¶36

Sd/

¶37

Assistant Registrar(C.O0

¶38

/True Copy/

¶39

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶40

¶41