Allowed

Bagyalakshmi v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

Madras HC29 Nov 2021HCP/939/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226, the High Court quashed a detention order passed under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court held that inordinate and unexplained delays in submitting remarks and considering the petitioner's representation rendered the detention illegal and liable to be set aside.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 10.06.2021 was set aside and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required for any other case.

Bagyalakshmi Vs State of Tamil Nadu… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 29.11.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶5

H.C.P.No.939 of 2021

¶6

Bagyalakshmi

¶7

...Petitioner/Mother of Detenue

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.State of Tamil Nadu

¶10

Rep. by the Secretary,

¶11

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶12

Fort St.George,

¶13

Chennai – 600 009.

¶14

2.The Commissioner of Police / Detaining Authority, O/o. The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore.

¶15

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison,

¶16

Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.

¶17

4.The Inspector of Police, C-2, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore District.

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

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 vide Memo C.No.25/G/IS/2021 dated 10.06.2021, passed by the Second Respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely K.Surya Prasanth aged 23 years, (who is presently under going detention in the central prison, Coimbatore), before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyappraj

¶21

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶22

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

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

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

¶25

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, K.Surya Prasanth, S/o.Krishnamoorthy, aged 23 years. The detenu has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order dated 10.06.2021 in C.No.25/G/IS/2021, holding him to be a "GOONDA", as contemplated under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

The Detention Order in question was passed on 10.06.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 11.06.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 15.06.2021. The remarks were duly received on 22.06.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 09.08.2021.

¶30

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention

¶31

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

¶32

of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 22.06.2021 and there was a delay of 48 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 15 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 33 days in considering the representation.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 33 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.

¶37

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.25/G/IS/2021, dated 10.06.2021, passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., K.Surya Prasanth, S/o.Krishnamoorthy, aged 23 years, 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

¶42

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

¶43

¶44