The delay in considering a representation against a preventive detention order, which vitiates the impugned detention order.

JUDGMENT

(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.168/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 24.06.2022 passed by the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner''s son Thiru.Bharathidasan @ Psycho Bharathi, S/o.Ramamoorthy, aged about 22 years, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the petitioner''s son Thiru.Bharathidasan @ Psycho Bharathi, S/o.Ramamoorthy, aged about 22 years, the detenu herein at liberty.)

M. Sundar, J.

Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by mother of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 24.06.2022 bearing reference Memo No.168/BCDFGISSSV/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.

2. Impugned detention order has been made under ''The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)'' [hereinafter ''Act 14 of 1982'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a ''Goonda'' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.

3. There are six adverse cases. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.207 of 2022 on the file of V-3 J.J.Nagar Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 353 and 506 (ii) of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.

4. Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel representing counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.

5. Though several grounds have been urged in the support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner at the hearing exhorted one point in his campaign against the impugned detention order and that one point turns on delay in considering a representation sent qua impugned detention order.

6.Responding to the submission, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor submitted to the contrary and placed before us the list of dates and the details are as follows:

''Representation dated .. 05.08.2022

Representation received on dated .. 12.08.2022

File submitted on dated .. 17.08.2022

Under Secretary dealt with on .. 17.08.2022

Deputy Secretary dealt with on .. 17.08.2022

Minister dealt with and file received on .. 24.08.2022

Rejected letter prepared on .. 24.08.2022''

7.A careful perusal of the list of dates brings to light that there is three days delay in considering the representation. As regards making an effective representation against a preventive detention order, the same is a constitutional safeguard ingrained in Clause 5 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. If this constitutional safeguard is hampered, it vitiates the impugned detention order. We also hasten to make it clear that there cannot be any straight jacket formula with regard to number of days within which a representation has to be disposed of. Delay in considering the representation point has to be dealt with on case to case basis. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the matter, we find that this delay has caused infraction of the detenu''s rights qua the pre