E.SUBBULAKSHMI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVT. & ORS.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Secretary To Govt. And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The detenu's mother filed a writ petition in the High Court of judicature at Madras bearing H.C.P. No.117
of 2016 challenging the Detention Order
N.1227/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 04.12.2015. The principal
contention pursued before the High Court was that the
typed set of booklet furnished along with the impugned
detention order to the detenu was illegible, in
particular, the copy of the F.I.R. in respect of Crime
No.598 of 2015 dated 18th March, 2015. The High Court
negatived the said contention on the finding that the
detenu did not make any representation to the
Appropriate Authority nor brought the said fact to the
notice of the concerned authority. Further, no such plea
was taken in the writ petition. Another contention
raised before the High Court that the name of the Judge
has not been correctly mentioned in the remand orders
supplied to the detenu, has also been rejected by the
High Court on the finding that the same can be no ground
to quash the detention order. No other contention was
pursued before the High Court.
(2.) In the present special leave petition the petitioner has raised different grounds to challenge the impugned
detention order. In the special leave petition and the
application for urging additional grounds, following
points have been urged, which were reiterated during the
course of arguments:
i) The detention order does not mention the specific period for which the same would operate and, therefore, it is vitiated.
ii) There is no record to indicate that the next friend/family member of the detenu was informed about the factum of detention at the earliest opportunity.
iii) The satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority is inter alia on the basis of a confessional statement which, however, does not bear the signature of the detenu and, therefore, could not have been relied upon. This has impacted the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority.
iv) Copy of the F.I.R. furnished to the detenu (at page Nos.7980 of the SLP paper book) is illegible and as a result of which the detenu was denied of an opportunity to make effective representation.
v) The impugned detention order refers to the Government order dated 18th October, 2015 but copy of that document has not been furnished to the detenu, which is fatal to the continued detention of the detenu.
(3.) Taking the first point urged before us, the same deserves to be stated to be rejected. Inasmuch as the
detention order has been issued by the Commissioner of
Police in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) read with
Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum
Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (for short, 'the
Act of 1982'). The grounds of detention served on the
detenu expressly mentions that the detention order shall
remain in force for 12 days in the first instance. The
proposal for confirmation of detention order was
considered by the Appropriate Authority (Deputy Secretary
to the Government dated 15th December, 2015 read with the
order passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government
dated 29th February, 2016). That makes it amply clear
that the detention period would continue up to 12 months.
The initial detention order, upon confirmation thereof,
would remain in force for a period of 12 months. Thus
understood, the ground urged by the petitioner to
challenge the detention of her son Murugan S/o.
Esakkimuthu Thevar is devoid of merit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.