Allowed

Kamala v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC6 Jul 2021HCP/2591/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a habeas corpus petition seeking release of a detenu held as a 'Sexual Offender' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the petitioner's representation violated procedural safeguards and fundamental rights, thereby vitiating the detention order.

What did the court decide?

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

Kamala Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.07.2021

¶3

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

¶4

H.C.P.No.2591 of 2020

¶5

Kamala .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by
The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Dharmapuri District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Jail Authority/Central Jail,
Salem.
5.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Dharmapuri District. .. Respondents

¶6

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 order passed by the 2^nd respondent in S.C.No.10/2020 dated 03.12.2020 and quash the same and produce the detenu Periyasamy, aged about 28 years, son of Late Velu, who is detained in Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Sundarapandiyan

¶8

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Govt.Advocate(Crl.Side)

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Periyasamy, aged about 28 years, son of Late Velu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in S.C.No.10/2020 dated 03.12.2020, holding him to be a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

The Detention Order in question was passed on 03.12.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 15.12.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 12.01.2021. The remarks were duly received on 27.01.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 08.02.2021.

¶17

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 15 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 8 days were Government Holiday and hence there was an inordinate delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 27.01.2021 and there was a delay of 7 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister

¶18

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

¶19

for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 1 day was Government Holiday, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 6 days in considering the representation.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 7 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.

¶24

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in S.C.No.10/2020 dated 03.12.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Periyasamy, aged about 28 years, son of Late Velu, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

s/d-

Assistant Registrar

True Copy

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶29

nsd To

¶30

1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai – 600 009.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

3.The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District.

¶34

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Jail Authority/Central Jail, Salem.

¶35

5.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
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.2591 of 2020
SR-II(CO)
LS(13/07/2021)

¶36

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

Kamala v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamala v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

Panchalai Vs the Secretary to Government

Muniyammal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Girija Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home

Mohammed Sulthan @ Shafeek Vs the State by

Sugu Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

Ramu Vs the Secretary to the Government