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

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records in detention order passed in BCDFGISSSV No.09/2022 dated 21.02.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenu namely Sethuraman @ Sethu, aged 24 years, S/o.Theerthamalai, who is now confined in Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066 before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.)

Rmt. Teekaa Raman, J.

1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the 2nd respondent by his order dated 21.02.2022 in BCDFGISSSV No.09/2022, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the 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. 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 21.02.2022. The petitioner made a representation on 25.03.2022. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority and the remarks were duly received. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 25.04.2022.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 23 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, of which 8 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was a delay of 15 days in considering the representation.

7. In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2011 (5) SCC 244], the Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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 15 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.09/2022 dated 21.02.2022, passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Sethuraman @ Sethu, aged 24 years, S/o.Theerthamalai, is directed to be released forthwith, unles