Habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution was filed in Madras high court against the order dated 15.10.2020 made in Cr.M.P.No.26/Goonda/2020/C1 to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu Prakash, son of Paneerselvam, aged about 25 years, who have been detained in Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
This writ petition has been filed by the mother of detenu, the detenu has been detained by the order in Cr.M.P.No.26/Goonda/2020/C1 dated 15.10.2020, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
Article 226 empowers the citizen of India to directly approach the High Court of the state for enforcement of his infringed fundamental rights through the filing of writs that are mentioned in article 32 of The Constitution of India.
Article 32 of the constitution of India mentions 5 writs that can be filed by a person directly into the supreme court of India if his Fundamental rights are infringed by the state.
The definition of state has been defined under Article 12 of the constitution of India.
The different types of writs that are mentioned in Article 32 of the Indian Constitution are listed as:
Several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus writ petition that there is a gross violation of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention.
The learned counsel from the petitioner side submitted that the representation made by the petitioner was not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay.
The Detention Order in question was passed on 15.10.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 27.11.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 02.12.2020. The remarks were duly received on 18.12.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 11.01.2021.
The petitioner contends that there was a delay of 16 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 4 days were Government Holiday and hence there was an inordinate delay of 12 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 18.12.2020 and there was a delay of 22 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 9 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 13 days in considering the representation.
In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 12 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and an unexplained delay of 13 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
As the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.26/Goonda/2020/C1 dated 15.10.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Prakash, son of Paneerselvam, aged about 25 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus thus can be filed when the detention made is delayed as seen in the case above where when the detention remarks are submitted at 12 days delay by the detaining authority. The court here referred to the case of Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government, and the case of Tara Chand vs. the State of Rajasthan and others wherein all cases mentioned above the question was arose on the validity of detention of the person due to delay in responding by the state.