Allowed

S.Poornima v. the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC30 Apr 2021HCP/2394/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the High Court set aside a drug offender's detention order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administration due to inordinate and unexplained delay in handling the petitioner's representation, citing Supreme Court precedents on procedural safeguards.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; detention order set aside; detenu directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required for another case.

S.Poornima Vs the Additional Chief… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 30.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

H.C.P.NO.2394 OF 2020

¶6

S.Poornima,
W/o.Silambarasan ...Petitioner/
Wife of the detenu
versus
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Police Commissioner,
Greater Chennai, Vepery.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Puzhal-II, Central Prison,
Thiruvallur.
4. The Inspector of Police,
K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station,
Chennai.

¶7

... Respondents

¶8

Prayer:-

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order in No.466/BCDFGISSSV/2020 on 19.11.2020 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner's husband one named Silambarasan, son of Ganesan, aged about 32 years, now confined at 3^rd respondent, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

[Order of the Court was made by R.PONGIAPPAN, J.]

¶14

Since date has already been fixed in this case for disposal in Crl.M.P.No.4797 of 2021, this matter has been taken up today.

¶15

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Silambarasan, son of Ganesan, aged about 32 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by its order dated 19.11.2020 in No.466/BCDFGISSSV/2020, holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶16

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.

¶17

Though several grounds have been raised in this Petition, 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.

¶18

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed a counter and strongly opposed this 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.

¶19

The Detention Order in question was passed on 19.11.2020. The petitioner made a first representation on 01.12.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 15.12.2020. The remarks were duly received on 17.12.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 11.01.2021.

¶20

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was an inordinate delay of 2 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 17.12.2020 and there was a delay of 23 days in considering the representation

¶21

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

¶22

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 17 days in considering the representation.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 2 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 17 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.

¶27

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.466/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 19.11.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz. Silambarasan, son of Ganesan, aged about 32 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

sri

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

¶34

The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Police Commissioner,
Greater Chennai, Vepery.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Puzhal-II, Central Prison,
Thiruvallur.
4. The Inspector of Police,
K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station,
Chennai.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Public, Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.2394 of 2020
RD(CO)
CS/04/05/2021

¶35

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

S.Poornima v. the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Poornima v. the Additional Chief 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

Meera Vs the Principal Secretary

Ekambaram Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

S.Pachayappan Vs The Principal Secretary

Gomathi Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by

R.Akila Vs the Secretary to the Government

Ramya Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by