Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NARAYANA KURUP & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN
G. Gowri Shankar - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary To Government Of Tamil Nadu And Others - Respondents
H.C.P.No.2024 of 2000
Decided On : 08 January 2001
Habeas Corpus - Delay in Disposal of Representation - COFEPOSA Act, 1974, Section 11 - Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The detention order of the petitioner was challenged mainly on the ground of delay in disposal of the detenu's representation by the second respondent-Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA). The court found unexplained delay in dealing with the detenu's representation, resulting in an infraction of the detenu's right under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the delay in disposal of the detenu's representation violated the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India, and accordingly quashed the impugned detention order and directed the respondents to set the detenu at liberty.
Issues: Delay in disposal of detenu's representation, Violation of detenu's rights under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the substance of the representation matters and not the salutation or address. It held that the right to make representation is a constitutional right of the detenu and should be considered expeditiously, uninfluenced by technical doubts. The court also highlighted the supervisory power of the Central Government under Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act, emphasizing the need for constant vigilance and watchful care.
Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, and the impugned detention order was quashed, directing the respondents to set the detenu at liberty forthwith.
K. NARAYANA KURUP, J.
The detention order bearing reference G.O. SR.I/550-5/2000, dated 1-6-2000 clamped on the detenu by the first respondent for reasons stated in grounds of detention is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition, mainly on the ground of delay in disposal of representation preferred by the detenu to the second respondent-joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) which was routed through the Jail Superintendent.
2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai forwarded a copy of representation dated 3-7-2000 of the detenu, which was admittedly received by second respondent-Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) on 7-7-2000. Upon receipt of the aforesaid representation of the detenu, the second respondent Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) entertained a doubt that since the representation is addressed to the Government of Tamil Nadu only, it cannot be treated as a representation addressed to the Central Government and considered by it. Accordingly the third respondent-Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai was requested to clarify whether the detenu wanted his representation dated 3-7-2000 to be addressed to the Central Government and considered by it vide letter dated 7-7-2000. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai vide letter dated 13-7-2000 forwarded a letter of the detenu dated 13-7-2000 which was received by the Central Government on 17-7-2000 wherein, the detenu had confirmed that "what I have already stated in my representation dated 3-7-2000 that I want my representation dated 3-7-2000 to be sent to the Secretary to Government of India. Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. New Delhi for consideration." After the receipt of the aforesaid letter of detenu on 17-7-2000, the second respondent-Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) called for para-wise comments from the Sponsoring Authority vide letter dated 18-7-2000, followed by reminder dated 28-7-2000. The comments of the Sponsoring Authority which was forwarded vide letter dated 27-7-2000 was received in the COFEPOSA Unit of the Central Government on 3-8-2000. The case file was submitted to the Deputy Secretary (COFEPOSA) on 3-8-2000. The Deputy Secretary (COFEPOSA) processed the case and put up to Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) on 4-8-2000. The Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) submitted the file to the Special Secretary-cum-Director General, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau on 4-8-2000. The Special Secretary-cum-Director General, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau considered the representation vis-a-vis the facts and circumstances of the case and rejected the same on 7-8-2000 and the detenu was intimated about the rejection of his representation dated 3-7-2000 vide memo dated 7-8-2000.
3. From the aforesaid narration, we find that there is unexplained delay on the part of the second respondent-Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) in dealing with petitioner's representation dated 3-7-2000. Admittedly, the aforesaid representation dated 3-7-2000 was received by second respondent on 7-7-2000. In the covering letter of Superintendent of Central Prison, Chennai, it is expressly made clear that he is submitting the representation received from the detenu for disposal. Once the second respondent-Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) receives such a representation for consideration and disposal on 7-7-2000, in accordance with law, it will be too much and hypertechnical for him to say that since it is addressed only to the State Government, which it is not, he will not consider it. We take note of the fact that it is not a mere copy of the representation preferred by detenu that has been sent to the Union of India. We find that the representation has been presented as usual accompanied by a covering letter from the Superintendent of Jail with a request for consideration and disposal. Therefore, there can be no scope for entertaining any doubt as to whether it was really intended for consideration and disposal by the Central Government on merits. From the letter of the detenu dated 13-7-2000, we find tha
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
