HC quashes 25 preventive detention orders in a month

Does not confirm even a single order passed by Collectors and CoPs

The Madras High Court Bench here has not confirmed even a single preventive detention order in the last one month. But, it quashed as many as 25 detention orders between July 19 and August 19 on various grounds, including inordinate delay in considering representations made by the detainees to the State government.

A Division Bench of Justices S. Manikumar and V.S. Ravi had quashed the detention orders of people ranging from three 19-year-old adolescent offenders detained in a borstal here after being branded as ‘goondas’ to a 51-year-old woman who was detained in a special prison for women in Thanjavur after being branded as a bootlegger.

Twenty-two detention orders were set aside either on the ground of delay on the part of detaining authorities (Collectors and Commissioners of Police) in submitting remarks called for by the government or delay caused by the Minister concerned in dealing with representations made by the detainees and remarks submitted by the authorities.

While quashing the preventive detention of a 19-year-old offender, the Division Bench found fault with the Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise for having taken seven days to take a final call on a representation made by the detainee to revoke his detention order. “The personal liberty of a person is at stake and any delay would not only be an indifferent act on the part of the authorities but would also be unconstitutional,” the judges said.

Allowing another habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of a 33-year-old detainee, they quashed the detention order passed by the Tiruchi Collector on the ground that he had not come to adverse notice in more than one case. The judges observed that an individual could not be branded as a goonda on the basis of a solitary act.

In another case, the judges distinguished the difference between maintenance of law and order and public order and held that preventive detention laws could be invoked only in case of threat to maintenance of public order.

Authoring the judgement, Mr. Justice Manikumar said: “A solitary incident of murder, which is not an uncommon occurrence, cannot be said to have disturbed public order and had an impact on society as a whole unless there are relevant materials to support the same.”