Procedural safeguards, including timely consideration of the detenu's representation, are crucial, and any inordinate and unexplained delay in this process renders 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 in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 28.11.2021 in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V. No.125/2021 against the petitioner's husband Vasanth @ Vasantha Kumar, male, aged 24 years, S/o.Murugan, who is confined at Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.)

A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.

1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Vasanth @ Vasantha Kumar, S/o. Murugan, aged 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.125/2021 dated 28.11.2021, 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 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 on behalf of the detenu was not considered in time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition. 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 28.11.2021. A representation was made on behalf of the detenu on 01.02.2022. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 04.02.2022. The remarks were duly received on 11.02.2022. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 18.04.2022.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 2 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 11.02.2022 and there was a delay of 66 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, 23 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 43 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 representation renders the very detention illegal.

10. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 5 days in su