High Court · 2025

H.C.P.(MD)No.954 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 13.10.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMARH.C.P.(MD)No.954 of 2025Sivagamasundari... Petitioner/Mother of detenu-vs-State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the second ____________Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD)No.954 of 2025respondent made in his proceedings in P.D.No.06/2025 dated 28.02.2025 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenu namely Vivek, son of Elangovan, Male, aged about 34 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner:Mr.K.M.KarunakaranFor R1 to R3:Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public ProsecutorO R D E R (Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.)The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Vivek, S/o.Ilangovan, aged about 34 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order No.05/2024, dated 25.01.2024 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. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the ____________Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD)No.954 of 2025respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority. 3. The main ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation is dated 02.07.2025 and from the records we find that it was received by the Superintendent of Prison on 03.07.2025, but it was despatched to the Government only on 08.07.2025. There is an unexplained delay from 03.07.2025 to 08.07.2025 in considering the representation. The said delay of 5 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 ____________Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD)No.954 of 2025detention 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 rights of the detenu and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.5. 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 5 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.6. In the above cited decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajammal's case, it has been held as follows:"It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation ____________Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD)No.954 of 2025forwarded 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."7. 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 5 days has not been properly explained.8. 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 ____________Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD)No.954 of 2025the detenu, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay.9. 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.10. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Detention Order No.06/2024 dated 28.02.2025, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Vivek, aged about 34 years, son of Ilangovan, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.11. We would further direct the Director General of Police/ Inspector General of Prisons, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai-8 to conduct an enquiry as to why the Jail Authorities, Central Prison at Trichy had not despatched the representation dated 02.07.2025, which ____________Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD)No.954 of 2025they received on 03.07.2025 and sent to the Government only on 08.07.2025. Only on that ground, we had quashed the detention order. A detail finding in this regard fixing the responsibility on the individual report to be forwarded to this Court within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. Call the matter again on 05.11.2025. [C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 13.10.2025 amNCC :Yes/NoIndex: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/No____________Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD)No.954 of 2025To1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.____________Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD)No.954 of 2025C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J. andR.VIJAYAKUMAR , J. amH.C.P.(MD)No.954 of 202513.10.2025____________Page 9 of 9