Judgment

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. -

Crl. A. No. 1673 of2005 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4441 of2005

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant challenged the detention of her husband under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 before the High Court of Madras in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 89 of 2005. The said petition was dismissed by f the High Court after hearing both sides. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.

3. On a report by Head Constable Gopalakrishna of Nellikuppam Police Station while investigating an alleged crime, the husband of the appellant was taken into custody. On being questioned, Abdul Kader, the husband of the appellant, made a statement which showed that he was an active member of a terrorist organisation "Vidial Velli". It was also found that he was actively involved with that organisation and other organisations like Al - Umma and SIMI, organisations which had been banned. In the light of the facts disclosed by the investigation and in view of the statement made by Abdul Kader, an order was passed by the detaining authority under the National Security Act for detention of the husband of the appellant. In the challenge in h the High Court to the detention under the National Security Act, it was contended that the order of detention was liable to be set aside on the ground that the representation made prior to the detention order was not considered by the detaining authority and that vitiated the impugned order of detention. Secondly, though a representation was made to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the same was not considered and, thirdly, the grounds of detention do not show any material to detain the detenu under the National Security Act. On behalf of the State it was submitted that no representation was made prior to the order of detention by the detenu and, therefore, there was no question of non - consideration of such a representation vitiating the order of detention. As regards the representation made to the Ministry of Home Affairs, there was nothing to show that any such representation was made before the order of detention was passed or immediately thereafter. On merits, it was submitted that there were adequate materials available to justify an order under the National Security Act in the circumstances of the case.

4. The High Court found that there was nothing to show that the detenu had in fact made a representation to the State Government before the order of detention and the order cannot be held to be vitiated on the ground that the State Government has not disposed of the representation. The Court further found that there was no acceptable material to show that a representation was sent to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the contention in that regard lacked merit. The Court also found that on a perusal of the materials including the statement made by the detenu in the case on hand and by the detenu in the connected case, it was clear that adequate materials existed to justify the order of detention. Thus, the order of detention was upheld by the High Court and the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant conceded that there was no material to show that a representation was made to the State Government before the order of detention was passed. Therefore, the first ground urged on behalf of the appellant in the High Court in support of the challenge to the order of detention need not detain us in this appeal. As regards the representation to the Central Government, it is seen from the counter - affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Government that the representation made on behalf of the detenu by his mother was submitted in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 4 - 7 - 2005 through an advocate. Since it was in Tamil and it could not be deciphered, it was forwarded to the District Magistrate and Collector of Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu and the Government of Tamil Nadu for getting it translated into English.