Teenagers Impacted By Technology, Indulging In Sexual Offences: Madras HC Suggests State To Formulate Counselling Mechanism For Young Detenues

The Madurai bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice N Anand Venkatesh emphasized that whenever these teenagers are arrested, efforts should be made to attend to their mental perversity. The court thus observed as under:

The teanagers, who are easily exposed to pornography even from their mobile phones, get confused and mislead at an age where they are in the grips of hormonal changes and they indulge in activities without understanding its consequences. Once these teanagers are arrested and kept inside the prison, efforts must be taken to attend to their mental perversion. The purpose of confining a teanager in the prison is not to abandon him and throw him out of the main stream of the society and all steps must be taken to reform such a person.

The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the father of 18 years old boy who was detained by the District Collector, holding him to be "Sexual Offender" under Section 2(ggg) of 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.

The order of the District Collector was challenged on the ground that there was gross violation of procedural safeguards as the representation made by the petitioner was not considered on time and there was inordinate and unexplained delay. It was submitted that there was a delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and a delay of 21 days in considering the representation.

The State, however, submitted that though there was a delay in considering the representation, no prejudice has been caused to the detenue and thus there was no violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

The court was convinced that there was inordinate and unexplained delay. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court emphasising on procedural safeguards and holding detention to be illegal whenever there was inordinate delay, the court was incline to quash the impugned detention order.

It also suggested the State Government to up with some mechanism whereby, offenders of this nature are properly counselled when they are in prison and when they come out of the prison, they are reformed and they are able to lead a normal life.

Case Title: Kanthan v State and others

Case No: HCP (MD) No. 1655 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 390

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.R.Pon Karthikeyan