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

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, toissue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected withthe detention order of the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV.No.06/2021,dated 22.06.2021 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents toproduce the body or person of the detenue by name Karthickraja, son ofThangavelu, aged about 24 years, now detained as ''Goonda'' at MaduraiCentral Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.)

R. Subramanian, J. & N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner is the detenu, namely, Karthickraja, son ofThangavelu, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by thesecond respondent by his order in BCDFGISSSV.No.06/2021, dated22.06.2021, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge inthis Habeas Corpus Petition.

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

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the HabeasCorpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wouldmainly focus his argument on the ground that there is gross violation ofprocedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention. The learnedcounsel, by placing authorities, submitted that the representations made bythe petitioner were not considered on time and there was an inordinate andunexplained delay with regard to the same.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed theHabeas Corpus Petition. He would submit that though there was delay inconsidering the representation, on that score alone, the impugned detentionorder cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional PublicProsecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and thus, there is noviolation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 ofthe Constitution of India.

5. The Detention Order in question was passed on 22.06.2021.The petitioner made a representation, dated 10.07.2021 and the same wasreceived on 16.07.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 16.07.2021. Thereafter, theGovernment considered the matter and passed an order rejecting thepetitioner's representation on 09.08.2021. Though the representation, dated10.07.2021 was received on 16.07.2021 and it was rejected only on09.08.2021 with a delay of 5 days, after excluding the Government Holidaysof 4 days. The delay in considering the representation remains unexplained.

6. In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2011 (5)SCC 244, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the proceduralsafeguards are required to be zealously watched and enforced by the Courtsof law and their rigour cannot be allowed to be diluted on the basis of thenature of the alleged activities undertaken by the detenu.

7. In Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government, reported in2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145, a Division Bench of this Court has held that theunexplained delay of three days in disposal of the representation made onbehalf of the detenu would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention.

8. In Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reportedin 1980 (2) SCC 321, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that anyinordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government inconsidering the representation renders the very detention illegal.

9. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an unexplained delayof 5 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention orderis, therefore, liable to be quashed.

10. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and theorder of detention in BCDFGISSSV.No.06/2021, dated 22.06.2021, passedby the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Karthickraja, sonof Thangavelu, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwithunless his detention is required in connectio