In this habeas corpus petition, the High Court quashed a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 due to inordinate and unexplained delays in processing the petitioner's representation, violating procedural safeguards.
Detention order dated 04.01.2021 set aside; detenue Sathya directed to be released forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.08.2021
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH
and
The Honourable Ms. Justice R.N.MANJULA
H.C.P.No.195 of 2021
M.Navaneetham.. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ranipet District.3.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District.4. The Inspector of Police,
Ranipet Police Station,
Ranipet District.
5.The Superintendent,
Special Prison for Women,
Vellore District. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire
records of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Ranipet, the 2nd respondent herein in connection with the
Detention Order No.B3/D.O.No.01/2021 dated 04.01.2021 and quash
the same and further direct the respondents to produce the
detenue Sathya (33 Years) W/o.Chidhambaram, detained in Special
Women Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set her at liberty
forthwith.
For Petitioner:Mr.M.Duraimurugan
For Respondents:Mr.R.Muniyapparaj,
Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]
The petitioner is the mother of the detenue Sathya, aged
about 33 Years, W/o.Chidhambaram. The detenue has been detained
by the second respondent by his order in B3/D.O.No.01/2021 dated
04.01.2021, holding her 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 detenue
and thus, there is no violation of the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
5. The Detention Order in question was passed on
04.01.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 11.01.2021.
Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the
Detaining Authority on 13.01.2021. The remarks were duly
received on 23.02.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered
the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's
representation on 27.02.2021.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a
delay of 40 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining
Authority, of which, 14 days were Government Holidays and hence
there was an inordinate delay of 26 days in submitting the
remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the
remarks were received on 23.02.2021 and there was a delay of 4
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, 1 day was Government
Holiday, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 3 days in
considering the representation.
7. 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
detenue.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an
inordinate and unexplained delay of 26 days in submitting the
remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 3
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.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and
the order of detention in B3/D.O.No.01/2021 dated 04.01.2021,
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenue, viz.,
Sathya, aged about 33 Years, W/o.Chidhambaram, is directed to be
released forthwith unless her detention is required in
connection with any other case.
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar
nsd
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ranipet District.3.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District.4. The Inspector of Police, Ranipet Police Station, Ranipet District.
5.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Vellore 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.+1CC to Mr.M.Durai Murugan, Advocate, SR.No. 42022H.C.P.No.195 of 2021
PA(CO)
B.VC (02/09/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an inordinate and unexplained delay in considering a representation against a detention order renders the detention illegal.
Whether a delay in submission of remarks and their consideration vitiates the detention order under Article 22 and 21.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rekha vs. State of Tamil NaduExplained¶28
Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 (5) SCC 244) · Who else cites this
Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to GovernmentReferred¶29
Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government (2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145)
Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and othersReferred¶30
Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1980 (2) SCC 321 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.Navaneetham
The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ranipet District
The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District
The Inspector of Police, Ranipet Police Station
The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Vellore District
P.N.PRAKASH
R.N.MANJULA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court