Anandkumar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1286 of 2024 Anandkumar ... Petitioner vs.
1. Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, District Collector and District Magistrate's office, Thanjavur District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the respondent No.2 in P.D.No. 36/2024 dated 04.09.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Thiru.Selvin @ Selvakumar, son of Ramasamy, aged about 50 years, now detained as Page No.1 of 8
Drug Offender at Central Prison, Trichirappalli, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran For Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] The petitioner is the son-in-law of the detenu namely, Thiru.Selvin @ Selvakumar, son of Ramasamy, aged about 50 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.36/2024 dated 04.09.2024, holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
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.
Page No.2 of 8
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, the petitioner's representation was received by the Government on 23.09.2024, whereas the file was submitted by the ASO/SO only on 01.10.2024. There is a delay of 7 days in Column Nos.6 and 7 of the Proforma dated 25.02.2025 in considering the detenu's representation. The said delay of 7 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.
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 caused any prejudice to the Page No.3 of 8
rights of the detenu and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition
5. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, we find that as per the proforma submitted the by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is a delay of 7 days in Column Nos.6 and 7 in considering the representation of the petitioner and we find that the said delay remains unexplained.
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 7 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.
7. In the above cited decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajammal's case, it has been held as follows: Page No.4 of 8
"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."
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 7 days has not been properly explained.
9. Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State of 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 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 delay.
Page No.5 of 8
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.
11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in P.D.No.36/2024 dated 04.09.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu namely, Thiru.Selvin @ Selvakumar, son of Ramasamy, aged about 50 years, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 16.06.2025 Index : Yes / No bala To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.
Page No.6 of 8
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, District Collector and District Magistrate's office, Thanjavur District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page No.7 of 8
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND R.POORNIMA, J.
bala ORDER MADE IN DATED : 16.06.2025 Page No.8 of 8