Procedural safeguards, including timely consideration of representations, are crucial in detention orders, and any inordinate and unexplained delay can render the detention illegal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.211/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 07.08.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Chandru @ USS @ Chandrasekar, S/o.Perumal, aged about 27 years, the detenu, now confined in the Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set the petitioner's husband Chandru @ USS @ Chandrasekar, S/o.Perumal, aged about 27 years, the detenu herein, at liberty.)

P.N. Prakash, J.

1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Chandru @ USS @ Chandrasekar, S/o.Perumal, aged about 27 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.211/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 07.08.2021, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there is gross violation of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention. The learned counsel, by placing authorities, submitted that the representation made by the petitioner was not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter. He would submit that though there was delay in considering the representation, on that score alone, the impugned detention order cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and thus, there is no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

5. The Detention Order in question was passed on 07.08.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 21.09.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 24.09.2021. The remarks were duly received on 25.10.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 26.11.2021.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 31 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 13 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 18 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 07.08.2021 and there was a delay of 32 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which, 9 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 23 days in considering the representation.

7. In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 (5) SCC 244), the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the procedural safeguards are required to be zealously watched and enforced by the Courts of law and their rigour cannot be allowed to be diluted on the basis of the nature of the alleged activities undertaken by the detenu.

8. In Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government (2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145), a Division Bench of this Court has held that the unexplained delay of three days in disposal of the representation made on behalf of the detenu would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention.

9. In Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1980 (2) SCC 321, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the represe