14 Days Inordinate & Unexplained Delay In Considering Detainee's Representation Sufficient To Quash Preventive Detention Order: Madras HC

The Madras High Court recently set aside a preventive detention order after observing that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of 14 days in considering the representation made on behalf of the detenu.

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 14 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.

Justice PN Prakash and Justice RMT Teeka Raman were hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the daughter of a detenue who was detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).

The petitioner contended that there was a delay of 14 days in considering his representation by the Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it. Thus, it was argued that there was a gross violation of procedural safeguards which would vitiate the detention. 

The Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that though there was a delay in considering the representation, the detention order could not be quashed for that reason alone. Further, no prejudice was caused to the detenue which would affect his rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

The court relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in Rekha v State of Tamil Nadu, Tara Chand v State of Rajasthan and others and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sumaiya v The Secretary to Government where the court has repeatedly held that unexplained delay renders the very detention illegal and is sufficient for setting aside the detention order. In view of the same, the court directed the respondents to release the detenue forthwith. 

Case Title: Lilly Pushpam v The Additional Chief Secretary and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 456

Case No: HCP No.1223 of 2022