1998 JTR(SC) 638
1998 3 AICLR 609 ; 1998 CriLR 568 ; 1998 4 JT 393 ; 1998 2 OLR 329 ; 1998 4 Scale 13 ; 1998 5 SCC 510 ; 1998 SCC(Cri) 1359 ; 1998 3 SCR 526 ; 1998 2 UJ 215 ; 1998 5 Supreme 165
1998(5) Supreme 165
Supreme Court of India
(From Madras High Court)
G.T. Nanavati and S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
Mrs. Venmathi Selvam -Appellant
versus
State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 629 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1169 of 1998)
Decided on 10-6-1998
Important Point
Though the delay by itself is not fatal, the delay which remains unexplained showing the indifferent manner in which the Government dealt with the representation of the detenu would render the continued detention of the detenu illegal.
Act Referred :TAMIL NADU PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF BOOTLEGGERS, DRUG OFFENDERS, FOREST OFFENDERS, GOONDAS, IMMORAL TRAFFIC OFFENDERS, SLUM GRABBERS AND VIDEO PIRATES ACT : .
(A) The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982, provides the legal framework for the preventive detention of individuals deemed a threat to public order. The impugned order of detention was passed under this Act, and the subsequent appellate proceedings tested the procedural validity of the Governments handling of the detenus representations under the statutory scheme.
(B) Key legal principles include the requirement that the Government must deal with representations of a detenu promptly, reasonably, and in accordance with the prescribed procedure; unexplained delays in considering such representations render continued detention illegal; and the burden is on the State to show compliance with procedural fairness.
Facts of the case:
The appellants husband was detained as a Goonda under the Act on 23.8.97 following a satisfaction by the Commissioner of Police that his activities were prejudicial to public order. The detenu made a representation on 7.10.97, which was processed through the prescribed channels and ultimately rejected by the Government on 10.11.97, with unexplained delays between 15.10.97 and 10.11.97 in calling for and acting on remarks from the detaining and sponsoring authorities.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Government failed to explain the delay in considering the representation and acted with indifference, rendering the continued detention illegal despite the relatively short delay.
Issues:
Whether the Government dealt with the detenus representation promptly and in compliance with procedural requirements, and whether unexplained delay in processing such representations invalidates the detention.
Ratio Decidendi:
Unexplained delay in considering a detenus representation, where the State fails to justify its procedural conduct, renders the detention illegal, and the court must quash the impugned order and direct release unless presence is required in another case.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the order of detention is quashed, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
(A) The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982, provides the legal framework for the preventive detention of individuals deemed a threat to public order. The impugned order of detention was passed under this Act, and the subsequent appellate proceedings tested the procedural validity of the Governments handling of the detenus representations under the statutory scheme.
(B) Key legal principles include the requirement that the Government must deal with representations of a detenu promptly, reasonably, and in accordance with the prescribed procedure; unexplained delays in considering such representations render continued detention illegal; and the burden is on the State to show compliance with procedural fairness.
Facts of the case:
The appellants husband was detained as a Goonda under the Act on 23.8.97 following a satisfaction by the Commissioner of Police that his activities were prejudicial to public order. The detenu made a representation on 7.10.97, which was processed through the prescribed channels and ultimately rejected by the Government on 10.11.97, with unexplained delays between 15.10.97 and 10.11.97 in calling for and acting on remarks from the detaining and sponsoring authorities.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Government failed to explain the delay in considering the representation and acted with indifference, rendering the continued detention illegal despite the relatively short delay.
Issues:
Whether the Government dealt with the detenus representation promptly and in compliance with procedural requirements, and whether unexplained delay in processing such representations invalidates the detention.
Ratio Decidendi:
Unexplained delay in considering a detenus representation, where the State fails to justify its procedural conduct, renders the detention illegal, and the court must quash the impugned order and direct release unless presence is required in another case.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the order of detention is quashed, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
Judgment
Nanavati, J.-Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellant is the wife of one Selvam who has been detained as a Goonda under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, on being satisfied that Selvam was involved in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and with a view to preventing him from acting in the said prejudicial manner it was necessary to detain him, passed an order of detention on 23.8.97.
3. The appellant challenged that order before the High Court of Judicature at Madras but her petition failed. She has, therefore, filed this appeal.
4. What is contention by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was unreasonable delay on the part of the Government in considering the detenu’s representation and, therefore, his continued detention is illegal. The detenu had made a representation on 7.10.97.
The Governor’s Secretariat received it on 14.10.97. It was despatched to the Government on 15.10.97. It called for remarks of the detaining authority on 17.10.97. The detaining authority in his turn called for remarks of the sponsoring authority on 21.10.97. The sponsoring authority gave its remarks on 24.10.97 and they were forwarded by the Commissioner of Police to the Government on 28.10.97. The representation was rejected by the Government on 10.11.1997. The State Government was required to explain how it dealt with the representation between 15.10.97 and 10.11.97. Except stating that it called for the remarks of the detaining authority on 17.10.97 the Government has failed to explain why it had become necessary for it to call for the remarks of the detaining authority. Even after an opportunity was given by this Court on 12.5.98 to the respondents to file a counter affidavit dealing with the contentions raised in the S.L.P. the Government has failed to file any counter and explain why it had called for the remarks of the detaining authority and what was the reason for not taking up for consideration the representation of the detenu from 21.10.97 till 10.11.97. Though the delay is not long it has remained unexplained. Though the delay by itself is not fatal the delay which remains unexplained becomes unreasonable. In spite of this well-settled legal position the State Government has failed to explain satisfactorily that it had dealt with the representation of the detenu as promptly as possible. It appears that oblivious of the correct legal position and its obligations in matters of preventive detention it has dealt with the representation of the detenu in a routine manner. This indifference of the Government is the cause for rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal. We, therfore, allow this appeal, quash and set aside the impugned order of detention and direct that the detenu be released forthwith unless his presence in jail is required in connection with some other case.
(H.K.D.) Appeal allowed.
*********