Allowed

Panchalai v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC5 Jul 2021HCP/1709/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed habeas corpus petition as detenu's mother, quashing detention order due to inordinate and unexplained procedural delays of 36 and 13 days respectively in obtaining remarks and considering representation, citing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order dated 25.08.2020 ordered under D.O.No.89/2020-C2 is set aside; the detenu Surya is directed to be released forthwith.

Panchalai Vs the Secretary to Government — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.07.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

H.C.P.No.1709 of 2020

¶6

Panchalai .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Vandavasi,
Tiruvannamalai District. .. Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order of detention passed by the 1^st respondent in D.O.No.89/2020-C2 dated 25.08.2020 and set aside the same, consequently direct the respondent to produce the detenu Surya, aged about 22 years, son of Kumar, now confined in Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶8

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

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jawahar

¶10

For Respondents Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, : Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

¶13

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Surya, aged about 22 years, son of Kumar. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.89/2020-C2 dated 25.08.2020, 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.

¶14

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶15

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.

¶16

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter. 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 Government Advocate (Crl.Side), 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.

¶17

The Detention Order in question was passed on 25.08.2020. The petitioner made a representation dated Nil. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 03.09.2020. The remarks were duly received on 27.10.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 17.11.2020.

¶18

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

¶19

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 54 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 18 days were Government Holiday and hence there was an inordinate delay of 36 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 27.10.2020 and there was a 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 7 days were Government Holiday, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 13 days in considering the representation.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 36 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 13 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.

¶24

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in D.O.No.89/2020-C2 dated 25.08.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Surya, aged about 22 years, son of Kumar, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(co)

¶27

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

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

¶29

nsd

¶30

¶31

1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Vandavasi,
Tiruvannamalai District.
6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Public, Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
7.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.1709 of 2020
RSV(CO)
A.SK(07.07.2021)

¶32

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

Panchalai v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchalai v. the Secretary to Government

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.Parashakthi Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Aishwariya Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Sarala Vs the Secretary to Government

Muniyammal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Girija Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home

Annakili Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government