Allowed

Selvi v. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Madras HC16 Jun 2021HCP/2578/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A habeas corpus petition filed by the sister of a detenu challenged a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act for alleged procedural violations. The High Court held that the unexplained delay in considering the representation rendered the detention illegal and quashed the order.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 03.12.2020 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required for any other case.

Selvi Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.06.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.2578 of 2020

¶7

Selvi, D/o.Gnanamani ... Petitioner / Sister of the detenu versus 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Goondas Section, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. 3.The Inspector of Police, L & O, T-13, Kundrathur Police Station, Chennai - 600 069. 4.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in No.492/BCDFGISSSV/2020 on the file of the second respondent dated 03.12.2020 quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the corpus of the detenu Transgender Vadivel @ Vadivukarasi (aged 33), daughter of Gnanamani, who is kept in Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066, before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Elangovan For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

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

¶13

Since date has already been fixed in this case for disposal in Crl.M.P.No.5370 of 2021, this matter has been taken up today.

¶14

The petitioner is the sister of the detenu, Transgender Vadivel @ Vadivukarasi, daughter of Gnanamani, aged about 33 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by its order dated 03.12.2020 in No.492/BCDFGISSSV/2020, 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 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 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.

¶18

The Detention Order in question was passed on 03.12.2020. The petitioner made a first representation on 15.12.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 21.12.2020. The remarks were duly received on 24.12.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 11.01.2021.

¶19

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was an inordinate delay of 3 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 24.12.2020 and there was a delay of 16 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of

¶20

which 6 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 10 days in considering the representation.

¶21

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.

¶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 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.

¶24

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 10 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 No.492/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 03.12.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz. sister of the detenu, Transgender Vadivel @ Vadivukarasi, daughter of Gnanamani, aged about 33 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶26

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

Sri

¶30

¶31

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

¶32

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

¶33

2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Goondas Section, Vepery,
Chennai - 600 007.
3.The Inspector of Police, L & O,
T-13, Kundrathur Police Station,
Chennai - 600 069.
4.The Superintendent,
Special Prison for Women,
Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
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.2578 of 2020
MG(CO)
GN(22/06/2021)

¶34

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

Selvi v. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvi v. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

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

Muniyammal Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by Its

Suguna Vs State Rep by

Sridevi Vs State Rep.by

Selvi Vs State Rep by

Hanifa Vs the Secretary to Government

Ambiga Vs the State of Tamil Nadu