Allowed

Shakila Banu v. the Secretary to the Government

Madras HC29 Apr 2021HCP/2575/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This habeas corpus petition challenged a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court held that significant delays in processing the representation caused by the detaining authority and the government violated procedural safeguards under Articles 21 and 22. Consequently, the detention order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 29.08.2020 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with another case.

Shakila Banu Vs the Secretary to the Government — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 29.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.No.2575 of 2020

¶6

Shakila Banu ..Petitioner/Mother of the Detenue Vs. 1.The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat Chennai-9 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Tirupathur District Tirpathur 635 601 3.The Superintendent of Police Tirupathur District Tirupathur 4.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Vellore-2 5.The Inspector of Police Vaniyambadi Town Police Station Tirupathur District .. Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 29.08.2020 in C3/D.O.No.31/2020 against the petitioner's son Askar Ali, aged 24 years, S/o.Javeeth Basha, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz. , Askar Ali, aged 24 years, S/o.Javeeth Basha. The detenu has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order dated 29.08.2020 in C3/D.O.No.31/2020, 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.

¶14

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.

¶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 Additional Public Prosecutor 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 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.

¶17

The Detention Order in question was passed on 29.08.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 30.09.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 09.11.2020. The remarks were duly received on 16.11.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 23.11.2020.

¶18

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government Holiday and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 16.11.2020 and there was a delay of 7 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the

¶19

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

¶20

Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 2 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 5 days in considering the representation.

¶21

In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2011 (5) SCC 244], the Hon'ble 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

In Tara Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in [1980 (2) SCC 321], the Hon'ble 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.

¶24

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 5 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.

¶25

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C3/D.O.No.31/2020, dated 29.08.2020, passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The detenu viz ., Askar Ali, aged 24 years, S/o.Javeeth Basha, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶27

¶28

1.The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat Chennai-9

¶29

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

¶30

2.The Joint Secretary to Government Public, Law and Order Department Secretariat, Chennai-9

¶31

3.The District Collector and District Magistrate Tirupathur District Tirpathur 635 601 4.The Superintendent of Police Tirupathur District Tirupathur

¶32

5.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Vellore-2 6.The Inspector of Police Vaniyambadi Town Police Station Tirupathur District 7.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras

¶33

AKM/30.04.21/4P- 8C/

¶34

H.C.P.No.2575 of 2020 29.04.2021

¶35

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

Shakila Banu v. the Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakila Banu v. the Secretary to the 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.Amsaveni Vs the State Rep by

K.Jeeva Vs the Commissioner of Police

B.Jayanthi Vs State Rep by

Vasantha Vs the Secretary to the Government

Meera Vs the Principal Secretary

Ekambaram Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by