Allowed

Palaniammal v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Madras HC26 Nov 2021HCP/793/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 challenging the detention of Murugesan as a 'Sexual Offender' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court quashed the detention order due to inordinate and unexplained procedural delays in considering the petitioner's representation, citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents that procedural safeguards cannot be diluted.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in C.M.P.No.13/SEXUAL OFFENDER/C2/2021 dated 25.03.2021 is set aside, and the detenu Murugesan is directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case.

Palaniammal Vs the State of Tamilnadu… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 26.11.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mrs. Justice R.HEMALATHA

¶5

H.C.P.No.793 of 2021

¶6

Palaniammal .. Petitioner/Wife of the detenue

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Secretary of Government,

¶9

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶10

Fort St.George,

¶11

Chennai-9.

¶12

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

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Police, Salem, Salem District.

¶14

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison,

¶15

Salem – 636 007.

¶16

5.The Inspector of Police, Theevattipatty Police Station,

¶17

Salem District.

¶18

(Crime No.167/2021) .. Respondents

¶19

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner's husband, the detenu Murugesan, aged 47 years, son of Perumal, presently detained in the Central Prison, Salem, under Act 14/1982, as 'Sexual Offender' vide the detention order dated 25.03.2021 in C.M.P.No.13/SEXUAL OFFENDER/C2/2021, on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein, directing to produce the person or body of the detenu Murugesan, aged 47 years, son of Perumal, before this

¶20

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

¶21

Court and thereafter, set him at liberty from the Central Prison, Salem, by setting the above order.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Vasudevan

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶24

ORDER

¶25

[Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

¶26

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Murugesan, aged 47 years, son of Perumal. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.M.P.No.13/SEXUAL OFFENDER/C2/2021, dated 25.03.2021, 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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

The Detention Order in question was passed on 25.03.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 17.04.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 04.05.2021. The remarks were duly

¶31

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

¶32

received on 18.05.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 26.07.2021.

¶33

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 14 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 5 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 9 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 18.05.2021 and there was a delay of 5 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which, 2 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 3 days in considering the representation.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 9 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 Home, Prohibition and Excise Department. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶38

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

¶39

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.M.P.No.13/SEXUAL OFFENDER/C2/2021 dated 25.03.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Murugesan, aged 47 years, son of Perumal, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶42

//True Copy//

¶43

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶44

nsd

¶45

¶46