The detention orders under the National Security Act were found to be vitiated due to non-intimation of arrest to near relatives, delay in disposal of representations, and lack of subjective satisfaction as the offences in the similar case relied on by the detaining authority were not similar.

V. Dhanapalan, J.

1. As the issue involved in all these Petitions is one and the same, they are taken up for disposal by a common order. In all these cases, the detenus have been detained under National Security Act, 1980 (Central Act 65 of 1980) under various orders of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai.

2. The case in brief, is as follows :

On the complaint of one G.R. Ashok Kumar, Post Master, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Mylapore, Chennai stating that there was a fire accident on the early hours of 29.10.2013, in which, the franking machine, air conditioner etc., were burnt, the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, E-1 Mylapore Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.1804 of 2013 under Sections 285, 427 IPC r/w Section 3 of TNPPD & L Act and Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. On reliable information, the Inspector of Police, arrested one Umapathy (detenu in HCP No.3003 of 2013) on 29.10.2013 and recorded his confession statement. Based on his confession statement, the Inspector of Police arrested the other accused viz., the detenus in HCP Nos.3004, 3014 and 3024 of 2013. During investigation, the case was altered into one under Sections 147, 120(b), 124(A), 436 IPC r/w 3 and 4 of TNPPD & L Act and 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Thereafter, on 29.10.2013 at 17.00 hours, another complaint of attack on Mandaveli post office and residence was received from one Singaram. Based on the said complaint, another case was registered in Crime No.1805/2013 under Sections 285, 448, 307 IPC r/w 3 of TNPPDL Act and 3 of Explosive Substances Act, which was later altered into one under Sections 448, 120(b), 124(A), 436, 307 IPC r/w 3 and 4 of TNPP D & L Act and 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Since the investigation revealed that these detenus had planned to attack the post office to intimidate and send a strong signal to the Central Government not to participate in the upcoming Common Wealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Sri Lanka, the detaining authority clamped the orders of detention against all the four accused.

3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of first and second respondents, it has been stated that the arrest of the detenus were informed to the friend of the detenus viz., Johnson, who also belongs to the same organisation as that of the detenus. It is further stated that the detention orders have been passed only after arriving at a subjective satisfaction with due application of mind. The sponsoring authority has placed all the relevant materials before the detaining authority and only after perusing the records, the detention orders have been passed. That apart, the representations sent on behalf of the detenus have also been duly considered. The documents sought for by the detenus are not relied upon by the detaining authority and therefore, those documents need not be furnished to them and other documents relied upon by the detaining authority have been furnished to the detenus. Since the recourse of normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing the detenus from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detention orders under the National Security Act, 1980 have been passed.

4. We have heard Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Shanmuga Velayutham, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State/Respondents 1 and 2 and Ms. P. Bhuvaneswari, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners attacked the orders of detention passed under the National Security Act on three grounds. Firstly, the arrest intimation has not been given to the near relatives of the detenus. Therefore, there is a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Secondly, he would contend that there is a delay in disposal of the petitioners' representations. Right to represent and to consider the same is