IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that unexplained delays in considering representations in preventive detention violate constitutional rights and can lead to the quashing of detention orders.

ORDER :

Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in Memo No. 654/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 10.06.2024 on the file of 2nd respondent herein to set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue i.e., the body of Ramachandran, S/o. Kanniyappan, male, aged about 42 years the detenue detained Under Act 14 of 1982 in detention order Memo No. 654/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 10.06.2024 herein now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set him at liberty.

1. The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in Memo No. 654/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 10.06.2024, is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. The order of detention sought to be assailed and the fact as narrated would reveal that, there is a delay of six days in considering the representation. The delay in considering the representation and the period during which the detenu was under detention would be construed as violation of the Constitutional mandatory under Article 22 of Constitution of India and thus, the ground of delay in considering the representation became fatal in the case of preventive detention.

4. It is trite law that the representation should be very expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without avoidable delay. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. From the records produced, we find that no acceptable explanation has been offered for the inordinate delay. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, (1999) 1 SCC 417 it has been held as follows:

“7. It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. Though no period is prescribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be taken on the representation, the words “as soon as may be” in clause (5) of Article 22 convey the message that the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest. But that does not mean that the authority is pre-empted from explaining any delay which would have occasioned in the disposal of the representation. The court can certainly consider whether the delay was occasioned due to permissible reasons or unavoidable causes. This position has been well delineated by a Constitution Bench of this Court in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 476 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 613. The following observations of the Bench can profitably be extracted here: (SCC p. 484, Para 12)

“It is a constitutional mandate commanding the authority concerned to whom the detenu submits his representation to consider the representation and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. The words ‘as soon as may be’ occurring in clause (5) of Article 22 reflects the concern of the Framers that the representation should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency without an avoidable delay. However, there can be no hard and fast rule in this regard. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no period prescribed either under the Constitution or under the detention law concerned, within which the representation should be dealt with. The requirement, however, is that there should not be supine indifference, slackness or callous attitude in considering the representation. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal.”

6. As per the dictum laid down by t