http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 3

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 1673 of 2005

PETITIONER:

A. Maimoona

RESPONDENT:

State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/12/2005

BENCH:

S.B. SINHA & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (Crl.) NO.4441 OF 2005)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1675 OF 2005

(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(Crl.) NO.4611 OF 2005)

Dowlath Beevi \005Appellant

Versus

State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. \005.Respondents

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.

Crl. A No. Of 2005@.S.L.P(Crl.) No. 4441 OF 2005

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant challenged the detention of her husband under

Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 before the High Court of

Madras in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 89/05. The said petition was

dismissed by the High Court after hearing both sides. Feeling aggrieved, the

appellant has filed this appeal by Special Leave.

3. On a report by Head Constable, Gopalakrishna of Nellikuppam

Police Station while investigating an alleged crime, the husband of the

appellant was taken into custody. On being questioned, Abdul Kader the

husband of the appellant, made a statement which showed that he was an

active member of a terrorist organization "Vidial Velli". It was also found

that he was actively involved with that organization and other organizations

like Al-Umma and SIMI, organizations which had been banned. In the light

of the facts disclosed by the investigation and in view of the statement made

by Abdul Kader, an order was passed by the detaining authority under the

National Security Act for detention of the husband of the appellant. In the

challenge in the High Court to the detention under the National Security Act,

it was contended that the order of detention was liable to be set aside on the

ground that the representation made prior to the detention order was not

considered by the detaining authority and that vitiated the impugned order of

detention. Secondly, though a representation was made to the Ministry of

Home Affairs, the same was not considered and thirdly, the grounds of

detention do not show any material to detain the detenu under the National

Security Act. On behalf of the State it was submitted that no representation

was made prior to the order of detention by the detenu and, therefore, there

was no question of non-consideration of such a representation vitiating the

order of detention. As regards the representation made to the Ministry of

Home Affairs, there was nothing to show that any such representation was

made before the order of detention was passed or immediately thereafter.

On merits, it was submitted that there were adequate materials available to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 3

justify an order under the National Security Act in the circumstances of the

case.

4. The High Court found that there was nothing to show that the

detenu had in fact made a representation to the State Government before the

order of detention and the order cannot be held to be vitiated on the ground

that the State Government has not disposed of the representation. The Court

further found that there was no acceptable material to show that a

representation was sent to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the

contention in that regard lacked merit. The court also found that on a

perusal of the materials including the statement made by the detenu in the

case on hand and by the detenue in the connected case, it was clear that

adequate materials existed to justify the order of detention. Thus, the order

of detention was upheld by the High Court and the writ petition filed by the

appellant was dismissed.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant conceded that there was

no material to show that a representation was made to the Sta