A. MAIMOONA versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 877 · Decided: 16-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A. MAIMOONA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 16, 2005 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
B 
National Security Act, 1980-Section 3(2)-Detention Order-Detenue's 
case that detention order vitiated for non-consideration of the representation 
made to the State Government and the Central Government bu detenue and 
J 
c 
non-availability of adequate material-Held: Detention order was justified 
since adequate material was available for detention-There was nothing to 
show that represent~tion was made to State Government, though th~ 
representation 1:1ade. to the Central Government was considered without 
delay-Hence, order of High Court calls for no interference. 
Detention Order wns passed against the husband of the appellant under 
the National Security Act, 19~0 on the basis of the investigation carr!ed cut 
and the statement of t~1·;: c!etenue that he was active member of a terrcr!s\ 
organisatio:i. Appe!laat - wifo of detcnue-challenged the dctcntior. order ca 
D 
the ground of non-consideration of the representation made to the Detaining 
Aufaority and ~ll:m to the Ministry by the detenue, and on non-availability of E 
adequate mater!als to detain the detenue. High Court upheld the detention 
order holding that there was nothing to show that the dettnu made 
representation to the State Government before the detention order and also 
to lh·~ Ministry of Home Affairs; and that adequate materials existed to justify 
the de-~cntion order. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant - wife of detenue reiterated her contention in the counter 
affidavit that the representation made on behalf of detenu was submitted in 
F 
the Ministry of Home Affairs on 4.7.2005 through an. advocate and since it 
was in Tamil, it was forwarded to the District Magistrate and Collector for 
getting it translated into English and on receiving it, the same was considered G 
at various levels, and finally the Home Secretary rejected the representation 
of the detcnu on 22.7.2005 and thereafter, the decision was communicated to 
the detenu and as such there was no unexplained delay in considering the 
representation. 
877 
H 
878 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: In the circumstances of the case, there is n~ unexplained delay 
or undue delay on the part of the Central Government in disposing of the 
representation made on behalf of the detenu. The representation submitted in 
the Ministry through an advocate was in Tamil, the same was fonvarded to 
B the concerned District Magistrate and Collector for getting it translated and 
as soon as the translation was received, the representation was considered at 
various levels without any delay and the same was disposed of in accordance 
with law. Furt,hermore, the appellant - wife of detenue-conceded that there was 
no material to show that a representation was made to the State Government 
C before the detention order was considered by the detaining authority. Adequate 
materials existed for ihe detention of the detenuc under the National Security 
Act, and as such th~ order of detention was justified and the order of High 
Court does not call for ii~terfercncc. (880-A-G; 881-A-B) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1673 of 
D 2005. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.2005 of the Madras High Court 
in H.C.P. No. 89 of2005. 
WITH 
Crl.A. No. 1675 of2005. 
V.G. Pragasam for the Appellant. 
B.R. Handa and S. Balakrishna, Navin Prakash, Ms. Sush:na Suri, S.N. 
F Jha, K..K. Misra and Subramonium Prasa~ for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, J. Crl. A N_o. 1673 of2005 @. S.L.P (Crl.) 
No. 4441 of 2005 
· 
G 
1. Leave granted. 
2. The appellant challenged the detention of her husband under Section 
3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 before the High Court of Madras in 
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 89/50. The said petition was dismissed by the 
H High Court after hearing both sides. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed 
A. MAIMOONA v. STATE OFT AMIL NADU [BALASUBRAMANY AN, J.] 
879 
this appeal by Special Leave. 
3. On a report by Head Constable, Gopalakrishna ofNellikuppam Police 
Station while investigating an alleged crime, the husband of the appellant was 
taken into custody. On being questioned, Abdul Kader the husband of .the 
appellant, made a statement which showed that he was an active member of 
A 
a terrorist organization "Vidial Velli". It w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.