The Madras High Court on Wednesday upheld the detention of K. Dhanasekaran, a former Chennai Corporation DMK councillor, under the Goondas Act.
The order was passed by the Chennai Police Commissioner on September 16, 2011. The detenu is in Central Prison, Vellore.
Challenging the order, his wife D. Vijayakumari filed a habeas corpus writ petition.
The petitioner submitted that the grounds for detention did not reveal that the pre-detention representation of September 6 sent by the detenu to the Home Secretary. The police Commissioner was considered the detaining authority. No order rejecting the representation was communicated to the detenu.
Therefore, on this ground alone, the detention order was liable to be set aside.
In its order, a Division Bench, comprising Justices K. Mohan Ram and G.M. Akbar Ali, said admittedly the averments/allegations made in the pre-detention representation were found in the anticipatory bail petitions placed before the detaining authority.
The same had been referred to and considered by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention. Therefore, non-placement of the representation would not amount to non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
Therefore, on this ground, the detention order could not be set aside, the Bench said and dismissed the petition.
The Bench observed that when the personal liberty of the detenu was being curtailed by the detention order, the detaining authority should take proper care as to whether the pre-detention representation had been placed before him.
It was true that in view of the huge volume of correspondence received at the Commissioner's office, it would be difficult for the detaining authority to remember the pre-detention representation received. But, that could not be an excuse.
The police Commissioner or detaining authorities should set up a separate cell or a section to exclusively deal with the representations received from persons who anticipated their detention or had been detained.
If such a facility was available and it maintained a register, it would be possible for the Commissioner at the time of passing the detention order to call for details from such cell as to whether any pre-detention representation had been received from the detenu.
