A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice P.N. Prakash and Justice N. Anand Venkatesh allows a Habeas Corpus petition on account of an inordinate delay of 13 days in considering the representation made by the detenu by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department. The court held that these grounds are sufficient to quash the detention order even though the rights under the constitution were not violated in letter and spirit.
Brief Facts:
This petition was 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 respondent dated 08.06.2022. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Jaison, Son of Vincent Paulraj. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.C2/30/2022, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
Contention of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly focused 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 on behalf of the detenu was not considered in time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay. The Detention Order in question was passed on 08.06.2022. A representation was made on behalf of the detenu on 21.06.2022 and remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 11.07.2022. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 19 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, 6 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 13 days in considering the representation.
Contention of the Respondents/Public Prosecutor:
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.
Observations of the Court:
The Court placed reliance on mainly three cases. The ratio of those cases are as follows:
- 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.
- 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.
- Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others 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.
Based on the aforementioned cases, the court observed that in the present case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 13 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department. Thus, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.
Decision of the Court:
The Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed and the order of detention in D.O.No.C2/30/2022 dated 08.06.2022 passed by the second respondent was set aside. The detenu viz., Jaison, Son of Vincent Paulraj, was directed to be released forthwith unless his detention was required in connection with any other case.
Case Title: Francisca vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and 4 others
Coram: Justice P.N. PRAKASH and Justice N. ANAND VENKATESH
Citation/Case no.: Habeas Corpus Petition No.1338 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mrs. S. Sujatha
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
