Allowed

Sudarmathi v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC9 Oct 2020HCP/723/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition, the High Court quashed a detention order passed under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 due to inordinate and unexplained procedural delays in considering the detenu's representation by the detaining authority and the Government.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention dated 06.03.2020 in No.167/BCDFGISSSV/2020 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any o

Sudarmathi Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.10.2020

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

H.C.P. No. 723 of 2020

¶7

Sudarmathi ... Petitioner -vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai District. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Greater Chennai. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing to produce the body of the petitioner's husband named Sivakumar, son of Shanmuga Sundaram, aged about 29 years presently confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith, after calling for the records pertaining to the detention order dated 06.03.2020 made in No.167/BCDFGISSSV/2020 passed by the second respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ponraj For Respondents :^{Mr.R.Prathap Kumar,} Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶8

Page numbers

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner is the wife of Sivakumar, son of Shanmuga Sundaram, aged about 29 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.167/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 06.03.2020, holding him to be a "GOONDA", as contemplated under Section 2(f) 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 and we have also perused the records carefully.

¶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 06.03.2020. The petitioner has made a representation on 30.03.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 24.04.2020. The remarks were duly received on 11.05.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 26.05.2020.

¶17

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 17 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 7 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 10 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 11.05.2020 and there was delay of 14

¶18

Page numbers

¶19

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

¶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 4 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 10 days in considering the representation.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 10 days in submitting the remarks and 10 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.

¶25

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.167/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 06.03.2020 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Sivakumar, son of Shanmuga Sundaram, aged about 29 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶28

mmi/ssm

¶29

Page numbers

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Chennai District.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Greater Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P. No. 723 of 2020
CP(CO)
CB(08/12/2020)

¶33

Page numbers

¶34

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

Sudarmathi v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudarmathi v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

Kasthuri Vs Union of India

Revathi Vs the Secretary to Government

Subramanian Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Shabiya Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S.Paramasivam Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Varalakshmi @ Kokila Vs the Secretary to Govt