2008 (7) TMI 970 - SC - Customs

Whether there is any need to take the detenu back to detention for serving the remainder of the period of detention which was indicated in the order of detention?

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the judgment of the Madras High Court allowing the Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. Consideration of a representation sent before the order of detention.
3. Presumption of receipt of representation by the Director General of Police.
4. Quashing of the detention order based on violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
5. Allegation of intentional delay tactics in legal proceedings.
6. Quashing of the High Court's order due to error in considering the representation.
7. Validity of detention based on incidents referred to in the order.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenges the Madras High Court's judgment allowing the Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the respondent against the Detention Order issued by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. The respondent was detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982.

2. The main issue before the High Court was the consideration of a representation sent by the detenu's mother before the detention order. The High Court found a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution due to the non-consideration of the representation by the detaining authority.

3. The High Court presumed that the Director General of Police received the representation as two other authorities had received it. However, the Supreme Court found this presumption unfounded and emphasized that the mere receipt by other authorities does not imply receipt by the Director General of Police.

4. The High Court's decision to quash the detention order was based on the perceived violation of Article 22(5) due to the non-consideration of the representation. The State and detaining authority challenged this decision, arguing that the representation was not required before the detention order.

5. The judgment highlighted concerns about intentional delay tactics in legal proceedings, citing cases where representations were made to higher authorities to create confusion and delay. The Court warned against such tactics to deflect the course of justice.

6. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order, emphasizing that the representation to the Advisory Board is only relevant after the detention order is served. The Court found the High Court's decision to be in error in quashing the detention order.

7. Lastly, the Court addressed the validity of the detention order based on the incidents referred to in it. The Court found that the incidents were not stale as the last one occurred before the detention order. The Court left it to the State Government and detaining authority to decide on the need for further detention based on the nature of the order.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision and providing detailed analysis on the issues of representation, presumption of receipt, intentional delay tactics, and the validity of the detention order based on referenced incidents.