Allowed

G.Amala v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Madras HC12 Jul 2021HCP/2167/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High CourtAllowed a habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order due to gross procedural violations. The Court held that an unexplained delay of three days in submitting remarks and six days in considering the representation rendered the detention illegal, ordering the detenu's release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order quashed; detenu Hari @ Gowri Sankar directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

G.Amala Vs the Additional Chief Secretary — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.07.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.No.2167 of 2020

¶6

G.Amala .. Petitioner Vs.

¶7

1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶8

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai City Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.

¶9

3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Central Prison, Salem – 636 007.

¶10

4.The Inspector of Police, M-6, Manali Police Station, Manali, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order vide Memo No.400/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 03.10.2020 passed by the second respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu Hari @ Gowri Sankar, son of Kulothungan, aged about 25 years, now confined in Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Karthik Pandian for Mr.Rajkumar Pandian For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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

¶16

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Hari @ Gowri Sankar, son of Kulothungan, aged about 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.400/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 03.10.2020, 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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 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 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.

¶20

The Detention Order in question was passed on 03.10.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 17.10.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 20.10.2020. The remarks were duly received on 23.10.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 06.11.2020.

¶21

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 3 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, there was no Government Holiday and hence there was an inordinate delay of 3 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 20.10.2020 and there was a delay of 12 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the

¶22

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

¶23

Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 6 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 6 days in considering the representation.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 3 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 6 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.

¶28

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.400/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 03.10.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Hari @ Gowri Sankar, son of Kulothungan, aged about 25 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶31

//True Copy//

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

Nsd

¶34

¶35

1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶36

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

¶37

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai City Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. 3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Central Prison, Salem – 636 007. 4.The Inspector of Police, M-6, Manali Police Station, Manali, Chennai.

¶38

5.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶39

H.C.P.No.2167 of 2020

¶40

MG(CO) GN(23/07/2021)

¶41

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

G.Amala v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Amala v. the Additional Chief Secretary

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

M.Karthik@Karthi Vs The State rep by its

Ganesan Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Its

Ganesan Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Its

Musthirijohn Vs State Rep.by

A.Dhayalan Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

B.Stephen Davitt Vs State of Tamilnadu Represented by the