Allowed

K.Lakshmi v. the Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC18 Apr 2022HCP/185/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a detention order dated 25.10.2021 under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court held that significant delays in submitting remarks and considering the petitioner's representation violated the detenu's fundamental rights, rendering the detention illegal.

What did the court decide?

The detention order C.M.P.No.38/GOONDA/C2/2021 dated 25.10.2021 was set aside and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless required for another case.

K.Lakshmi Vs the Principal Secretary to… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.04.2022

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and

¶5

The Honourable Mr. Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN

H.C.P.No.185 of 2022

K.Lakshmi

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶11

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

¶12

3.The Commissioner of Police, Salem.

¶13

4.The Additional Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.

¶14

5.The Inspector of Police, Sankari Police Station, Salem District. .. Respondents

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 25.10.2021 vide order in Memo No.C.M.P.No.38/GOONDA/C2/2021, against the petitioner's son Aravind, aged about 22 years, S/o.Krishnan, who is confined at the Central Prison, Salem and set aside the same and direct the 2^nd respondent to produce the detenu before this Court and thereby setting him at liberty.

¶16

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

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shankar For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Aravind, aged about 22 years, S/o.Krishnan. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.M.P.No.38/GOONDA/C2/2021, dated 25.10.2021, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

The Detention Order in question was passed on 25.10.2021. The petitioner made a representation dated nil. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 09.11.2021. The remarks were duly received on 03.12.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 03.01.2022.

¶25

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a

¶26

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

¶27

delay of 24 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 6 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 18 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 03.12.2021 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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 18 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.

¶32

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.M.P.No.38/GOONDA/C2/2021, dated 25.10.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Aravind, aged about 22 years, S/o.Krishnan, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶35

//True Copy//

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

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

¶38

nsd To