Allowed

Balakrishnan v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its

Madras HC16 Jul 2021HCP/76/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition challenging a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Essential Supplies and General Provisions Act, 1982. The court quashed the order due to inordinate and unexplained delays by the detaining authority and the Government in considering the petitioner's representation, violating procedural safeguards under Articles 21 and 22.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention in S.C.No.08/2020 dated 25.11.2020 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.07.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.No.76 of 2021

¶6

Balakrishnan .. Petitioner/Father of the Detenue

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George,

¶9

Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

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

¶11

3.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶12

4.The Superintendent of Prison,

¶13

Central Prison, Salem, Salem District.

¶14

5.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palacode, Dharmapuri District. .. Respondents

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records from the 2^nd respondent in connection with the order in S.C.No.08/2020 dated 25.11.2020 and quash the same and produce the petitioner viz., Balamurugan, son of Balakrishnan, aged about 24 years, now confined in Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶16

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

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rameshkumar

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioner is the father of the detenu Balamurugan, son of Balakrishnan, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in S.C.No.08/2020 dated 25.11.2020, 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

The Detention Order in question was passed on 25.11.2020. The petitioner made a representation 14.12.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 19.12.2020. The remarks were duly received on 08.01.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 19.01.2021.

¶26

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 20 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining

¶27

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

¶28

Authority, of which, 7 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 13 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 08.01.2021 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 Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 4 days were Government Holiday, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 3 days in considering the representation.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 13 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 3 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.

¶33

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in S.C.No.08/2020 dated 25.11.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Balamurugan, son of Balakrishnan, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶34

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶35

//True Copy//

¶36

nsd

¶37

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

¶38

¶39