MRS VENMATHI SELVAM versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 526 · Decided: 10-06-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MRS VENMA THI SEL V AM 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
JUNE 10, !998 
[G.T. NANAVATI ANDS. SAGHIRAHMAD. JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers. Drug 
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum 
C Grabbers Act, 1982-Preventive Detention -Representation made by the 
detenu-Delay by Government in considering it - Delay, though short, not 
explained--Unexplained delay is unreasonable-- Continued detention due 
to indifference of the authorities, is illegal-Detention order set aside. 
The Commissioner of Police passed an order detaining appellant's 
D husband under the 1982 Act The High Court rejected the appellant's petition. 
Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. The detenu had made a representation on 7.10.97. The State 
E Government was required to explain how it dealt with the representation 
between 15.10.97 and 10.11.97. Except stating that it called for the remarks 
of the detaining authority on 17.10.97 the Government has failed to explain 
why it had become necessary for it to call for the remarks of the detaining 
authority. Even after an opportunity was given by the Court on 12.5.98 to the 
respondents to file a counter affidavit dealing with the contentions raised in 
F the S.L.P. the Government has failed to file any counter and explain why it 
has called for the remarks of the detaining authority and what was the 
reason for not taking up for consideration the representation of the detenu 
from 21.10.97 till 10.11.97. Though the delay is not long it has remained 
unexplained. Though the delay by itself is not fatal the delay which remains 
G unexplained becomes unreasonable. In spite of well-settled legal position the 
State Government has failed to explain sati~factorily that is had dealt with 
the representation of the detenu as promptly as possible. It appears that 
oblivious of the correct legal position and its obligations in matters of 
preventive detention it has dealt with the representation of the detenu in a 
routine manner. This indifference of the Government is the cause for 
H rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal.(527-F-H; 528-A-C) 
526 
V. SELVAMv. STATEOFT.N. [NANA VAT!, J) 
527 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 629 A 
.. 
of 1998 . 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.98 of the Madras High Court 
in H.C.P. No. 998of1997. 
K.K. Mani for the Appellant. 
B 
M."N. Krishnamani, T. Raja and V.G. Pragasam for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
NANA VA TI, J Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. c 
The appellant is the wife of one Sclvam who has been detained as a 
Goonda under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, 
Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and 
Slum Grabbers Act, 1982. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, on being 
satisfied that Sclvam was involved in activities prejudicial to the maintenance D 
of public order and with a view to preventing him from acting in the said 
~ 
prejudicial manner it was necessary to detain him, passed an order of detention 
on 23.8.97. 
The appellant challenged that order before the High Court of Judicature 
E 
at Madras but her petition failed. She has, therefore filed this appeal. 
What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there 
was unreasonable delay on the part of the Government in considering the 
detenu's representation and, therefore, his continued detention is illegal. The 
detenu had made a representation on 7.10.97. The Governor's Secretariat F 
• 
received it on 14.10.97. It was despatched to the Government on 15.10.97. lt 
cailed for remarks of the detaining authority on I 7.10.97. The detaining authority 
in his tum called for remarks of the sponsoring authority on 21.10.97. The 
-
sponsoring authority gave its remarks on 24.10.97 and they were forwarded 
by the Commissioner of Police to the Government on 28.10.97. The 
representation was rejected by the Government on 10. I 1.97. The State G 
Government was required to explain how it dealt with the representation 
between 15.10.97 and 10.11.97. Except stating that it called for the remarks of 
the detaining authority on 17.10.97 the Government has failed to explain why 
it had become necessary for it to call for the remarks of the detaining autl)qrity. 
Even after an opportunity was given by this Court on 12.5.98 to the 
respondents to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.