Allowed

Muniyammal v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC22 Jun 2021HCP/2556/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 filed by the mother of a detained individual challenging a detention order issued under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The High Court quashed the order due to inordinate and unexplained delays in handling the representation by the detaining authority and the government minister, citing Supreme Court precedents on procedural safeguards.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order No.121/2020-C2 dated 03.11.2020 is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required for another case.

Muniyammal Vs the Secretary to Government — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.06.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.No.2556 of 2020

¶6

Muniyammal ... Petitioner /
Mother of the detenu
versus
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Tiruvannamalai District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvannamalai District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Arni Town Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District.
5.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Vellore,
Vellore District. ... Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai, the 2^nd respondent herein in connection with the Detention Order No.121/2020-C2 dated 03.11.2020 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to produce the detenu Thangamani (24 years), S/o.Subramani, the detained in Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶8

For Petitioner : M/s.M.Rebecca For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

The petitioner is the mother of Thangamani, son of Subramani, aged about 24 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by its order dated 03.11.2020 in Detention Order No.121/2020-C2, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 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 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.

¶15

The Detention Order in question was passed on 03.11.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 20.11.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 08.12.2020. The remarks were duly received on 18.12.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 11.01.2021.

¶16

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 10 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 1 day was Government Holiday and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 9 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 18.12.2020 and there was a delay of 22 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 5 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 17 days in considering the representation.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 9 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.

¶22

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Detention Order No.121/2020-C2 dated 03.11.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz. Thangamani, son of Subramani, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

Sri

¶28

¶29

1.The Secretary to Government,

¶30

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶31

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶32

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

¶33

3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶34

4.The Inspector of Police, Arni Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶35

5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District.

¶36

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.2556 of 2020
MG(CO)
GN(30/06/2021)

¶37

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

Muniyammal v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muniyammal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shantha Vs the Secretary to Government

Johnpetti Vs the Secretary to Government

Manjula Vs The Home Secretary (Prison)

Sridhar Vs State by

Revathi Vs the Secretary to the Government

K.Elango @ Pachal Elango Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by