RAJAMMAL versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 551 · Decided: 14-12-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAJAMMAL 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR 
DECEMBER 14, 1998 
[K.T. THOMAS, D.P. WADHWA AND 
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Preventive detention-Representation by detenu to the Government-
Delay in disposal of such representation-Detention, if vitiated-Held, yes-
Absence of the Minister concerned al the Headquarters not sufficient to C 
justifY the delay-The duration or range of delay not material-Tamil Nadu 
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest 
Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982, 
Section 3(I)-Conslilution of India, Articles 22(5) and 21. 
Words and Phrases- "as soon as may be"-Meaning of-In the context D 
of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 
The appellant was kept under detention under Section 3(1) of the Tamil 
Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, 
Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers E 
Act, 1982 passed by the State Government on 18.12.1997. A representation 
forwarded by her on 13. 1.1998 was rejected by the Government. She filed a 
habeas corpus petition before the High Court challenging her detention, 
inter alia, on the ground that there was delay in considering the representation 
submitted by her. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence this 
appeal 
F 
It was contended by the appellant that her representation dated 
13.1.1998 reached the Secretary to the Government on 5.2.1998. The Mini.ster 
concerned rejected the representation on 14.2.1998, and the delay is the 
interval between the aforesaid two dates and there was no valid justification 
thereto and hence the detention must be treated as vitiated. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider 
the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. Though no 
551 
I-I 
552 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A period is prescribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be 
taken on the representation, the words "as soon as may be" in clause (5) 
of Article 22 convey the massage that the representation should be considered 
and disposed of at the earliest. But that do41s not mean that the authority is 
pre-empted from explaining any delay which would have occasioned in the 
. B disposal of the representation. The Court can certainly consider whet~er the 
delay was occasioned due to permissible reasons or unavoidable causes. 
(555-E-F) 
1.2. If delay was caused on account of any indifference or lapse in 
' . 
considering the representation, such delay will adversely affect further, 
C detention of the prisoner. In other words, it is for the authority concerned 
to explain the delay, if any, in disposing of the representation. It is not enough 
to say that. the delay was very short. Even longer delay can as well be 
explained. So the test is not the duration or range of delay, but how it is 
explained by the authority concerned. [556-D) 
D 
1.3. In the present case the representation was sent by the detenu on 
13.1.1998 which reached the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu on 
5.2.1998. The Government which received remarks from different authorities 
submitted the relevant file before the Under Secretary for processing it on 
the next day. The Under Secretary forwarded it to the Deputy Secretary on 
the next working day. Thereafter the file was submitted before the Minister 
E who received it while he was on tour. The Minister passed the order only on 
14.2.1998. Though there is explanation for delay till 9.2.1998, there is no 
explanation whatsoever for the delay which occurred thereafter. Merely stating 
that the Minister was on tour and hence he could pass orders only on 
14.2.1998, is not a justifiable explanation when the liberty of a citizen 
F guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is involved. Absence of the 
Minister at the Headquarters is not sufficient to justify the delay since the 
file could have reached the Minister with utmost promptitude in cases 
involving the vitally important fundamental right of the citizen. [556-E-G) 
1.4. The delay from 9.2.1998 to 14.2.98 remains unexplained and such 
G unexplained delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu, and she must 
be set at large forthwith. [557-E) 
Mohinuddin v. District Magistrate, Beed, (1987) 4 SCC 58; Raghavendra 
Singh v. Superintendent, [1986) 1SCC650; Rumana Begum v. State of A.P., 
(1993) S

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.