The Madras High Court has set aside the preventive detention of A. Senthil alias Ramesh, a man with several criminal cases, after observing that the Puducherry government had abdicated its responsibility to follow the legal procedures while detaining him.
Allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by his wife S. Padmavathi, a Division Bench of Justices S. Vimala and S. Ramathilagam held that it had no option but to set aside the detention order because the government authorities had acted against the constitutional provisions.
“Before parting with the case, this court would like to point out that this case is yet another instance where this court is reluctantly compelled to set free from detention a person believed to be a threat to the society for want of due care, promptness and attention on the part of the government,” the judges said.
The court said that if only the State government had properly applied its mind to the correct legal position and shown greater concern and anxiety while exercising the power of preventive detention, the infirmity vitiating the detention of the petitioner could have been easily avoided.
“We hope and trust that the State government will be more careful in the future so that persons who disrupt the peace and tranquillity of the community are effectively prevented from carrying on with their nefarious activities,” the Division Bench observed. The detainee Senthil had been initially named as DMK candidate for Thattanchavaday constituency in the 2011 elections. However, he was replaced on coming to know about a government order preventing him from entering Puducherry for two months.
On June 19, 2017, a District Magistrate in Kavundanpalayam had issued an order to detain Senthil under the Puducherry Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act of 2008. The detention order was also approved by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on June 23, 2017. However, it could not be executed for long because he was absconding.
He was finally arrested on November 4, 2017. Yet, the detention order was not executed immediately because the post of chairperson an Advisory Board constituted under the 2008 Act was lying vacant.
The Puducherry government passed a G.O. only on January 30 this year for the constitution of the Advisory Board and only on February 13, the detention order was served.
Though he made a representation on February 21 to reconsider the detention, the officials did not pass any orders on it by citing the matter having been referred to the Advisory Board.
Such a lack of action was erroneous, the Bench held. The judges pointed out that the government should have considered the detainee’s representation independently irrespective of the matter pending before the Advisory Board and failure do so led to the violation of the constitutional protection.
