Allowed

Sumathi v. State Rep.by

Madras HC6 Oct 2020HCP/414/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking habeas corpus and quashment of a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The High Court held that the inordinate and unexplained delay by the Detaining Authority and Government in considering the detenu's representation vitiated the detention, violating fundamental rights.

What did the court decide?

The detention order is set aside and the detenu Mayappan is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sumathi Vs State Rep.by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.10.2020

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

H.C.P.No.414 of 2020

¶6

Sumathi .. Petitioner/Wife of the detenue
Vs.
State represented by
1)The Commissioner of Police,
Detaining Authority,
City Police Office,
Thiruppur City,
Thiruppur District. ..Respondent/Detaining
Authority
2)The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
3)The Inspector of Police,
Thiruppur North Police Station,
Thiruppur City,
Thiruppur District
Cr.No.1213/2019. .. Respondent/Sponsoring
Authority
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records
relating to the detention order in C.No.03/G/IS/2020 dated
22.01.2020, passed by the 1 st respondent, quash the same and
direct the first respondent to produce the body of the detained
person Mayappan, S/o.Balusamy, aged 43 years, before this Court,
who is now detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore, in pursuance
of the aforesaid order under Act 14/82 branding the detained
person as 'DRUG OFFENDER' and set him at liberty.

¶7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Rajamohan

¶9

For Respondents :^{Mr.R.Prathap Kumar,} Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶10

ORDER

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Mayappan, S/o. Balusamy, male, aged 43 years. The detenu has been detained by the first respondent by his order in C.No.03/G/IS/2020 dated 22.01.2020 holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶13

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

¶14

Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

The Detention Order in question was passed on 22.01.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 12.02.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 14.02.2020. The remarks were duly received on 25.02.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 16.03.2020.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 11 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 4 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 25.02.2020 and there was delay of 20 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 6 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 14 days in considering the representation.

¶19

In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 (5) SCC 244), the Honourable 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

In Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1980 (2) SCC 321, the Honourable 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.

¶22

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks and unexplained delay of 14 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶23

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.03/G/IS/2020 dated 22.01.2020, passed by the first respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Mayappan, S/o. Balusamy, male, aged 43 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar //True copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

mmi/ssm

¶29

1)The Commissioner of Police,
Detaining Authority,
City Police Office,
Thiruppur City,
Thiruppur District.
2)The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
3)The Inspector of Police,
Thiruppur North Police Station,
Thiruppur City,
Thiruppur District
Cr.No.1213/2019.
4)The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order)
Fort Saint George, Chennai-9
6)The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P. No. 414 of 2020
NR(CO)
GMY(22/10/2020)

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Sumathi v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumathi v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Karthika Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Kowsaliya Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Selvi Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Manikandan Vs the State Represented by

Kanageswari Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Iswarya Vs the Secretary to the Government