Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

Must Read

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2)...

Authority Cannot Interfere With Legal Heir Certificate When There Are No Issues Between 2 Wives: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India in Madras High Court. The case of Lakshmi Jagannathan v....

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Notification of Bar Council on Spot Admission

On 23rd November 2020, the Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the Honourable Smt. Justice P.V....

Death in Police Custody Requires Post-Mortem: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Madras High Court. The case of S....

Follow us

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of the petitioner to be illegal and against the fundamental right to liberty given under Article 21.

The Madras High Court on October 16th, 2020 declared in the case of Sangeetha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., that the detention order was passed with an inordinate and unexplained delay of considering the representation of the detenu renders the detention illegal.

Brief Facts of the case

The detenu was detained by the second respondent (police commissioner) holding him to be a “Goonda”, as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Detention Order in question was passed on 25th February 2020. The petitioner made a representation on 24th June 2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 30.06.2020. The remarks were duly received on 08.07.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner’s representation on 23.07.2020.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The contention of the petitioner was that there was a delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government Holidays, and hence there was an inordinate delay of 6 days in submitting the remarks. 

It was further contended by the petitioner that the remarks were received on 08.07.2020 and there was a delay of 14 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 4 days were Government Holidays. Hence, there was an inordinate delay of 10 days in considering the representation.

Respondent’s Arguments

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition. He argued that though there was a 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 was caused to the detenu and thus, there was no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

Court’s Observation

The court observed various landmark judgments like Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 (5) SCC 244) in which the Honorable 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”.

Similarly, the High Court observed the case of Tara Chand vs. the State of Rajasthan and others 1980 (2) SCC 321, where the Honorable Supreme Court held that “any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the very detention illegal”.

Based on these judgments and from the facts of the case, Justice M.N Sundresh and Justice D. Krishnakumar finally observed that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of 6 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and an unexplained delay of 10 days in considering the representation by the Hon’ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department.

Court’s Order

The High Court allowed the petition and held the detention order to be illegal and quashed the same.

Click here to view the original judgement.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

Authority Cannot Interfere With Legal Heir Certificate When There Are No Issues Between 2 Wives: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India in Madras High Court. The case of Lakshmi Jagannathan v. The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Chennai. was...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Notification of Bar Council on Spot Admission

On 23rd November 2020, the Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the Honourable Smt. Justice P.V. Asha heard the case of...

Death in Police Custody Requires Post-Mortem: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Madras High Court. The case of S. Prema v. The Superintendent of...

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order and states “Liberty of a Citizen cannot be taken away in the Absence of Lawyer”

In the case of Parveen v. State of Haryana, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “a citizen’s liberty cannot be taken away”. This observation...

Revised Gratuity Ceiling Notified by Central Government Applicable To All Establishments Irrespective of Whether Controlled by the State or Centre: Tripura High Court

In the case of Sri Tapas Guha vs Tripura Tea Development Corporation Ltd. and others, a single-judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Akil Kureshi...

Madras High Court Dismisses Tax Case Appeal by OPG Energy Pvt. Ltd.

The OPG Energy Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was filed against an order passed...

Jharkhand High Court Disposes of Criminal Revision Petition Against the Judgment Passed by the Learned Sessions Judge With Modification

A criminal revision petition against the Judgment dated 23.07.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.49/2014 was...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -