Madras HC: No Detention Order of 25-Year-Old, Habeas Corpus Allowed

Must Read

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was...

Follow us

A Writ Petition with relation to Habeas Corpus, was filed by the mother of a detenu under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was heard and decided upon by a two-judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice M.M. Sundresh and Hon’ble Justice D. Krishnakumar.

Facts of the Case

One Rajendran, is a 25-year-old man, arrested and detained by the Commissioner of Police in May, 2020. He was held as a “Sexual Offender” as given under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982. The present Habeas Corpus Writ Petition challenges his unlawful detainment.

The Detention Order in question was passed on 30.05.2020. The Petitioner made a representation on 11.06.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority and the remarks were duly received on 16.06.2020. The Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the Petitioner’s representation on 02.07.2020.

Arguments Before the Court

The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is a gross violation of procedural safeguards. This, invariably vitiates the detention. He further maintained that the representation made by the detenu, Mr. S. Rajendran, was not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay.

There was a delay of two days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority. It was further maintained that the remarks were received on 16.06.2020 and there was a delay of 11 days in considering the representation by the Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department. 

The Counsel for the Respondents or the additional government pleader submitted that delay in consideration of representation alone cannot be the grounds for quashing the impugned order. 

Court’s Observations

The Court observed that there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay of 2 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority. The Court further noted the unexplained delay of 7 days in considering the representation by the Hon’ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department.

The Court placed reliance upon Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 (5) SCC 244), wherein it was 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.”

The Court observed 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. This was held in Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government (2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145). 

The Court also cited Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 1980 (2) SCC 321 wherein it was held that any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the very detention illegal.

Court’s Order

The Court allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition and set aside the detention order of the detenu. The Court directed that S. Rajendran be released immediately unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. 

Click here to read the 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

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

Supreme Court Upheld “Environmental Rule of Law” in NGT Decision to Demolish Illegal Hotel on Forest Land

This case concerns the dispute relating to the additional construction of hotel-cum-restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex along with a bus stand and...

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hiscox Action...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -