Allowed

Jansirani v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC17 Nov 2021HCP/735/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court of Madras allowed a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of the petitioner's husband as a 'Goonda'. The court quashed the detention order issued under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 due to unexplained delays of four days in submitting remarks and twenty days in considering the rep

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 16.04.2021 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required for any other case.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶6

H.C.P.NO. 735 OF 2021

¶7

Jansirani

¶8

...Petitioner/ Wife of Detenue

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, For St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶11

The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, O/o. Commissioner of Police Vepery, Chennai 600 007.

¶12

The Superintendent, Central Prison Puzhal, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.

¶13

The Inspector of Police, T4 Maduravoyal Police Station, Maduravoyal, Chennai 600 095. ...Respondents

¶14

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 detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent in 108/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 16.04.2021 against petitioner's husband, the detenu herein, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai, and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Srinivasan @ Aruppu Seenu, Son of Kattaiya, aged 34 years before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶15

For petitioner : Mr. A. Nirmal Kumar For respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detunu has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order dated 16.04.2021 in 108/BCDFGISSSV/2021, 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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed his counter affidavit and strongly 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.

¶22

The Detention Order in question was passed on 16.04.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 29.04.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 03.05.2021. The remarks were duly received on 07.05.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 07.06.2021.

¶23

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 4 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which there was no Government Holiday and hence, there was a delay of 4 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 07.05.2021 and there was a delay of 31 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary

¶24

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

¶25

dealt with it, of which 11 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was a delay of 20 days in considering the representation.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an unexplained delay of 4 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and an inordinate and unexplained delay of 20 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶30

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in 108/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 16.04.2021, passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The detenu Srinivasan @ Aruppu Seenu, Son of Kattaiya, aged 34 years, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶31

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

bga

¶35

¶36