Allowed

Tamilarasi v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC26 Apr 2024HCP(MD)/359/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes a detention order in Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 due to an unexplained six-day delay in forwarding the petitioner's representation, holding such delay violates the constitutional imperative of Article 22(5).

What did the court decide?

Detention order No.93/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 07.11.2023 set aside; detenu Palanikumar directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required for another case.

Tamilarasi Vs The Principal Secretary to Government — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD) No.359 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

H.C.P.(MD) No.359 of 2024

Tamilarasi

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Principal Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Police Madurai City, Madurai

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police Mathichiyam Police Station Madurai City (Crime No.679 of 2023)

¶13

4.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Madurai ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records in detention order No. 93/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 07.11.2023, on the file of the second

¶15

Page 1 of 8

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

H.C.P.(MD) No.359 of 2024

¶18

respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce

¶19

the body of the petitioner's son, namely, Palanikumar, son of Sanmugam, aged about 22 years, now confined in Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Palmurugan For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]

¶23

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Palanikumar, son of Sanmugam, aged about 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in 93/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 07.11.2023, 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.

¶24

2. 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.

¶25

Page 2 of 8

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

H.C.P.(MD) No.359 of 2024

¶28

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that there is an unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner, dated Nil. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated Nil, the same was received by the Government on 05.01.2024 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 23.01.2024. There is a delay of six days in Column Nos.6 to 12 of the Proforma dated 23.04.2024 in considering the petitioner's representation. The said delay of six days in considering the representation remains unexplained and the same vitiates the impugned detention order. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417 .

¶29

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the detention order. It is also stated that even if there is any delay in disposal of the representation, it has not

¶30

Page 3 of 8

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

H.C.P.(MD) No.359 of 2024

¶33

caused any prejudice to the rights of the detenu and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition

¶34

5. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, we find that the representation of the petitioner is dated Nil, which was received by the Government on 05.01.2024 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 23.01.2024. As per the proforma submitted the by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is a delay of six days in Column Nos.6 to 12 in considering the representation of the petitioner and we find that the said delay remains unexplained.

¶35

6. It is trite law that the representation should be very expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without avoidable delay. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. From the records produced, we find that no acceptable explanation has been offered for the delay of six days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.

¶36

_____________ Page 4 of 8_

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

H.C.P.(MD) No.359 of 2024

¶39

7. In the above cited decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in

¶40

Rajammal 's case, it has been held as follows:

¶41

"It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. Though no period is prescribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be taken on the representation, the words "as soon as may be " in clause (5) of Article 22 convey the message that the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest."

¶42

8. As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in above cited Rajammal 's case, number of days of delay is immaterial and what is to be considered is whether the delay caused has been properly explained by the authorities concerned. But, in the instant case, the inordinate delay of six days has not been properly explained.

¶43

9. Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State of

¶44

Kerala-2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC , the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the history of personal liberty, as is well known, is a history of insistence on procedural safeguards. The expression 'as soon as may be', in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India clearly shows the concern of the makers of the

¶45

Page 5 of 8

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

H.C.P.(MD) No.359 of 2024

¶48

Constitution that the representation made on behalf of the detenu, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable

¶49

delay.

¶50

10. In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the ground of delay on the part of the Government in disposing of the representation of the petitioner.

¶51

11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention No.93/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 07.11.2023, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Palanikumar, son of Sanmugam, aged about 22 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶52

[A.D.J.C., J.] [K.R.S., J.]

¶53

26.04.2024

¶54

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶55

krk

¶56

_____________ Page 6 of 8_

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis