IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to consider representations without delay under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the consequences of unexplained delay in considering representations in cases of preventive detention.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANU, J.

1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of habeas corpus to produce Vineeth @ Poppy, who is suffering preventive detention under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 in execution of Ext.P1 detention order issued by the 2nd respondent on 27.01.2024.

2. The sponsoring authority submitted report to the 2nd respondent considering the detenu as ‘Known Rowdy’ citing three criminal cases that are pending for trial and another case in which investigation is ongoing.

3. The first case relied on by the 2nd respondent is Crime No. 132/2020 of Eravipuram Police Station registered on 29.01.2020 for the offences under Sections 450, 294(b), 427, 341, 326, 307, 323, 354, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The second case relied on is Crime No. 146/2022 of Kilikolloor Police Station registered on 14.02.2022 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC. The third case is Crime No. 1570/2022 of Eravipuram Police Station registered on 13.11.2022 for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 308, 294(b) and Section 34 of the IPC. The 4th case is Crime No. 1843/2023 of Eravipuram Police Station registered on 31.10.2023 for the offences under Sections 341, 506, 324 and 308 of IPC, in which investigation is ongoing.

4. We have elaborately heard the arguments advanced by Sri. C. Rajendran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Sri. K.A. Anas, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

5. Several contentions have been raised in the writ petition. The contentions emphasised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing are summarised as below:

1. The detenu submitted representation before the 1st respondent on 15.02.2024, but the same was not considered promptly by the 2nd respondent, thereby defeating the constitutional guarantee under Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

2. The representation was considered only after receipt of the report from the Advisory Board and the said course of action adopted has infringed the fundamental right of the detenu.

3. There was considerable delay not only in considering the representation, but also in communicating the decision taken on the representation to the detenu.

6. Learned Government Pleader produced the relevant files for perusal. The following dates are relevant for the purpose of deciding the prime contentions raised:

7. In view of the chronology given above, it is clear that the detenu submitted representation to the 1st respondent on 15.02.2024, after reference to the Advisory Board was made on 06.02.2024. The 1st respondent Government did not act on the representation till report of the Advisory Board was received on 19.03.2024. Though the report was received on 19.03.2024, decision on the representation was taken only on 08.04.2024 as seen from the relevant files produced by the learned Government Pleader. The Government decided to confirm the detention order subsequently and communicated the order to the detenu later, on 17.04.2024. Therefore, the detenu came to know about the fate of the representation only after a lapse of two months from the date of submission of the same.

8. We proceed further, keeping in mind the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi vs. State of Manipur, 2010 (9) SCC 618:

3. Individual liberty is a cherished right, one of the most valuable fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the citizens of this country. On “liberty”, William Shakespeare, the great play writer, has obs