Allowed

Shanthi v. the Prinicipal Secretary to

Madras HC6 Jul 2017HCP(MD)/186/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court quashed a detention order of a sexual offender under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Sex Offenders Act due to unexplained delays of 12 days by authorities in submitting remarks and 2 days in disposing of the petitioner's representation, ruling that such delays violated Article 22.

What did the court decide?

Detention order in P.D.No.89 of 2016 dated 27.12.2016 quashed; detenu Gnana Praveen @ Arun set at liberty forthwith.

Shanthi Vs the Prinicipal Secretary to — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.07.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶7

H.C.P.(MD) No.186 of 2017

¶8

Shanthi ... Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

The Principal Secretary to Government,

¶11

State of Tamil Nadu,

¶12

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort. St. George,

¶13

Chennai- 600 009.

¶14

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

¶15

The Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in P.D.No.89 of 2016, dated 27.12.2016 and quash the same and direct the Respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Gnana Praveen @ Arun, son of Selvin Stephen, aged about 26 years, now detained at Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

[Order of the Court by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]

¶20

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu – Gnana Praveen @ Arun, aged about 26 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.89 of 2016, dated 27.12.2016 holding him to be a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶21

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶22

¶23

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.

¶24

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 detenu and thus, there is no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

The Detention Order in question was passed on 27.12.2016. The petitioner made a representation, dated 05.01.2017. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 10.01.2017. The remarks were duly received on 30.01.2017. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 06.02.2017.

¶26

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and thereafter, there was again a delay of 2 days in considering the representation.

¶27

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 detenu.

¶28

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 detenu would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention.

¶29

In Tara Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and others , [ 1980 (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.

¶30

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 12 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 2 days in considering the representation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶31

¶32

In the result, the Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in P.D.No.89 of 2016, dated 27.12.2016 , is quashed. The detenu, namely, Gnana Praveen @ Arun is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.

¶33