The court invoked Article 21 of the Constitution of India to grant compensation for the unlawful and illegal detention of the detenue.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records in connection with the detention order passed in C.O.C.No.12/2022 dated 28.1.2022 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's wife namely Muthulakshmi, w/o Manokaran, female, aged 38 years, who is detained in Special Prison for Women, Tiruchirappalli before this court and set her at liberty. )

S. Vaidyanathan, J., & A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.

“Criminals / Convicts are to be treated with respect, even though they may not deserve it.”

The present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed to call for the entire records in connection with the detention order passed in C.O.C.No.12/2022 dated 28.1.2022 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's wife namely Muthulakshmi, w/o Manokaran, female, aged 38 years, who is detained in Special Prison for Women, Tiruchirappalli before this court and set her at liberty.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his wife was detained in preventive detention pursuant to the order passed by the second respondent dated 28.1.2022 as a "Bootlegger".

3. The petitioner had raised the following grounds for setting aside the detention order:-

i) The detenue was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate I, Nagapattinam on 8.12.2021, but, the detaining authority had passed the detention order against the detenue on 28.1.2022 with a delay of 50 days and that too without mentioning reasons for the delay.

ii) The sponsoring authority has failed to inform the arrest of the detenue in ground case to the family members of the detenue, which is in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416.

iii) Despite the fact that the bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.33 of 2022 before the Sessions Court, Nagapattinam was dismissed, the detaining authority has erred in observing that there is a real and imminent possibility of the detenue coming out on bail, which is a clear case of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.

iv) The detention order came to be passed on 28.1.2022, however, the booklet was issued after five days without following the procedures contemplated under Section 8(1) of the Act 14/1982.

4. When the matter came up for hearing on 21.7.2022, it was brought to the notice of this court by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the Advisory Board has opined that there is no sufficient cause for detention and thereby the order of detention has been revoked by the Government. However, it was represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government order of revocation had not been communicated to the petitioner till date and the detenue was in continued detention. Finding some seriousness in the issue, the matter was listed on 25.7.2022 to enable the Additional Public Prosecutor to get instructions.

5. On 25.7.2022, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Government order of revocation dated 22.7.2022 was produced by the respondents, a perusal of which revealed that the matter was placed before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board, as early as on 16.3.2022 had opined that there is no sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner's wife Muthulakshmi, however, the revocation order came to be passed only on 22.7.2022 that too, after the indulgence of this court and thereby the detenue had been detained illegally/unauthorisedly for more than four months from 16.3.2022.

6. This court, while ordering for immediate release of the detenue, directed the first respondent to file a Report stating the reason