The Madras High Court Bench here has quashed an order passed by Nagapattinam Collector on June 18 detaining K. Murugeswari, 55, under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 and lodging her in a Special Prison for Women in Tiruchi.
Allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by her husband Krishnamoorthy alleging illegal detention, a Division Bench of Justices S. Nagamuthu and M.V. Muralidaran quashed the detention order passed against the woman, branded as a bootlegger, on the ground of violation of procedural safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) and 22 (protection against arrest and detention in certain cases) of the Constitution.
The judges pointed out that after her detention on June 18, the woman had made a representation to the government on June 23 to reconsider her detention. Acting upon it, the government called for remarks from the detaining authority (Collector) on June 28 but the remarks were received only on July 8 with a delay of eight days and the government took a long time thereafter before rejecting her plea by an order passed on July 27.
“If we look into the facts of the present case, undoubtedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of eight days and therefore, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed,” the judges said after recalling that the Supreme Court in Sumaiya versus Secretary to Government (2007) had held that an unexplained delay of even three days in disposal of representation made by a detainee was sufficient to set aside the detention order.
The Division Bench pointed out that in Rekha versus State of Tamil Nadu (2011), the apex court had held that the right to life and liberty of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution must be protected by the courts and that procedural safeguards were required to be zealously watched and enforced by the courts of law and their rigour should not be allowed to be diluted on the basis of the nature of the alleged activities of the detainees.
