Govt should be careful in orders on accused: Madras HC
DECCAN CHRONICLE. | J STALIN
PublishedOct 20, 2018, 5:30 am IST
This court is left with no choice but to strike down the detention of the petitioner.
Madras high court
Chennai: Quashing an order, detaining an accused under the Goondas Act, the Madras high court has expressed its hope and trust that the Puducherry government would be more careful in the future so that persons who disrupt the peace and tranquility of the community are effectively prevented from carrying on with their nefarious activities.
A division bench comprising Justices S.Vimala and S.Ramathilagam said, "Before parting with the case, this court would like to point out that this case is yet another instance where this court is reluctantly compelled to set free from detention a person believed to be a threat to the society, and allowed to go scot-free for want of due care, promptness and attention on the part of the state government. This court is left with no choice but to strike down the detention of the petitioner. If only the state government had properly applied its mind to the correct legal position as laid down by various decisions of this court and the apex court and shown greater concern and anxiety while exercising the power of preventive detention, the infirmity vitiating the detention of the petitioner could have been easily avoided".
Allowing a habeas corpus petition from Padmavathi, wife of the detenu Senthil alias Ramesh, the bench said it was no doubt true that the advisory board had given an opinion opining that there was sufficient cause for detention of the detenu, which opinion has been accepted by the government while confirming the order of detention. But, it was to be pointed out that the government, with an independent and open mind, has not considered the representation submitted by the detenu, without reference to the opinion of the advisory board and passed an order on the said representation. However, the materials available on record reveals that the detenu has been informed to place the representation before the advisory board, which was not the intent of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution, the bench added.
The bench said the government has abdicated its power in not considering the representation submitted by the detenu, but had asked the detenu to place the representation before the advisory board, was against the constitutional guarantees as envisaged under Article 22 (4) and (5) of the Constitution.
Further, it was to be pointed out that though the order of detention has been confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the advisory board, no order has been passed on the representation submitted by the detenu till date, thereby, independent application of mind having not shown by the government would definitely vitiate the confirmation of detention.
"For the reasons aforesaid, the constitutional mandate under Article 22 (5) having not been satisfied, there being no consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner, the non-consideration of the representation vitiates the order of detention and is liable to be quashed", the bench added and quashed the detention order.
DECCAN CHRONICLE. | J STALIN
PublishedOct 20, 2018, 5:30 am IST
This court is left with no choice but to strike down the detention of the petitioner.
Madras high court
Chennai: Quashing an order, detaining an accused under the Goondas Act, the Madras high court has expressed its hope and trust that the Puducherry government would be more careful in the future so that persons who disrupt the peace and tranquility of the community are effectively prevented from carrying on with their nefarious activities.
A division bench comprising Justices S.Vimala and S.Ramathilagam said, "Before parting with the case, this court would like to point out that this case is yet another instance where this court is reluctantly compelled to set free from detention a person believed to be a threat to the society, and allowed to go scot-free for want of due care, promptness and attention on the part of the state government. This court is left with no choice but to strike down the detention of the petitioner. If only the state government had properly applied its mind to the correct legal position as laid down by various decisions of this court and the apex court and shown greater concern and anxiety while exercising the power of preventive detention, the infirmity vitiating the detention of the petitioner could have been easily avoided".
Allowing a habeas corpus petition from Padmavathi, wife of the detenu Senthil alias Ramesh, the bench said it was no doubt true that the advisory board had given an opinion opining that there was sufficient cause for detention of the detenu, which opinion has been accepted by the government while confirming the order of detention. But, it was to be pointed out that the government, with an independent and open mind, has not considered the representation submitted by the detenu, without reference to the opinion of the advisory board and passed an order on the said representation. However, the materials available on record reveals that the detenu has been informed to place the representation before the advisory board, which was not the intent of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution, the bench added.
The bench said the government has abdicated its power in not considering the representation submitted by the detenu, but had asked the detenu to place the representation before the advisory board, was against the constitutional guarantees as envisaged under Article 22 (4) and (5) of the Constitution.
Further, it was to be pointed out that though the order of detention has been confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the advisory board, no order has been passed on the representation submitted by the detenu till date, thereby, independent application of mind having not shown by the government would definitely vitiate the confirmation of detention.
"For the reasons aforesaid, the constitutional mandate under Article 22 (5) having not been satisfied, there being no consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner, the non-consideration of the representation vitiates the order of detention and is liable to be quashed", the bench added and quashed the detention order.
No comments:
Post a Comment