Maimoona Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors  INSC 703 (16 December 2005)
SINHA & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
OUT OF S.L.P. (Crl.) NO.4441 OF 2005) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1675 OF 2005
(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(Crl.) NO.4611 OF 2005) Dowlath Beevi Appellant Versus
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. .Respondents P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.
No. Of 2005@.S.L.P(Crl.) No. 4441 OF 2005 1. Leave granted.
appellant challenged the detention of her husband under Section 3 (2) of the National
Security Act, 1980 before the High Court of Madras in Habeas Corpus Petition No.
89/05. The said petition was dismissed by the High Court after hearing both
sides. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal by Special Leave.
3. On a
report by Head Constable, Gopalakrishna of Nellikuppam Police Station while
investigating an alleged crime, the husband of the appellant was taken into
custody. On being questioned, Abdul Kader the husband of the appellant, made a
statement which showed that he was an active member of a terrorist organization
"Vidial Velli". It was also found that he was actively involved with
that organization and other organizations like Al-Umma and SIMI, organizations
which had been banned. In the light of the facts disclosed by the investigation
and in view of the statement made by Abdul Kader, an order was passed by the
detaining authority under the National Security Act for
detention of the husband of the appellant. In the challenge in the High Court
to the detention under the National Security Act, it was
contended that the order of detention was liable to be set aside on the ground
that the representation made prior to the detention order was not considered by
the detaining authority and that vitiated the impugned order of detention.
Secondly, though a representation was made to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the
same was not considered and thirdly, the grounds of detention do not show any
material to detain the detenu under the National Security Act. On
behalf of the State it was submitted that no representation was made prior to
the order of detention by the detenu and, therefore, there was no question of
non-consideration of such a representation vitiating the order of detention. As
regards the representation made to the Ministry of Home Affairs, there was
nothing to show that any such representation was made before the order of
detention was passed or immediately thereafter.
merits, it was submitted that there were adequate materials available to
justify an order under the National Security Act in the
circumstances of the case.
High Court found that there was nothing to show that the detenu had in fact
made a representation to the State Government before the order of detention and
the order cannot be held to be vitiated on the ground that the State Government
has not disposed of the representation. The Court further found that there was
no acceptable material to show that a representation was sent to the Union
Ministry of Home Affairs and the contention in that regard lacked merit. The
court also found that on a perusal of the materials including the statement
made by the detenu in the case on hand and by the detenue in the connected
case, it was clear that adequate materials existed to justify the order of
detention. Thus, the order of detention was upheld by the High Court and the
writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
learned counsel for the appellant conceded that there was no material to show
that a representation was made to the State Government before the order of
detention was passed. Therefore, the first ground urged on behalf of the
appellant in the High Court in support of the challenge to the order of
detention need not detain us in this appeal. As regards the representation to
the Central Government, it is seen from the counter affidavit filed on behalf
of the Central Government that the representation made on behalf of the detenu
by his mother was submitted in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 4.7.2005 through
an advocate. Since it was in Tamil and it could not be deciphered, it was
forwarded to the District Magistrate and Collector of Cuddalore District, Tamil
Nadu and the Government of Tamil Nadu for getting it translated into English.
That was done on 5.7.2005 itself. A reminder was also sent on 13.7.2005. The
English translation of the representation was received on 18.7.2005. It was put
up before the Under Secretary on 19.7.2005. The case of the detenu and the
representation were carefully considered and the matter was put up before the
Deputy Secretary on 21.7.2005. With the comments of the Deputy Secretary it was
put up before the Joint Secretary on 21.7.2005 itself. On the same day it was
forwarded to the Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs after being
considered by the Joint Secretary. The Special Secretary after consideration of
the same put up the matter before the Home Secretary on 22.7.2005. The Home
Secretary after considering all the relevant aspects, rejected the
representation of the detenu on 22.7.2005. The decision was communicated to the
detenu through Home Secretary, Tamil Nadu and Superintendent Central Prison,
Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu by way of crash wireless message dated 25.7.2005. In the
light of this affidavit, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that
there was an unexplained delay from 13.7.2005 to 18.7.2005 in considering the
representation. The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted
that since the representation received long after the order of detention
through an advocate was in Tamil, the same was forwarded to the concerned
District Magistrate and Collector for getting it translated and as soon as the
translation was received, the representation was considered at various levels
without any delay and the same was disposed of in accordance with law. In the
circumstances of the case, we find that there is no unexplained delay or undue
delay on the part of the Central Government in disposing of the representation
made on behalf of the detenu which was handed over to the Ministry only on
4.7.2005. We, therefore, find no merit in the argument raised in this regard on
behalf of the appellant.
6. On a
due consideration of the materials relied on by the Government and the reasons
given by the High Court in refusing to interfere with the order of detention
passed, we are of the view that adequate materials exist for the detention of
the appellant under the National Security Act. In that view, we do not find any
merit in the argument that the order of detention was not justified on the
we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court. The
decision of the High Court is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed.
No. Of 2005 @ S.L.P(Crl.) No. 4611 OF 2005 8. Leave granted.
special or separate arguments were addressed in this appeal.
petition for Special Leave to Appeal is filed by Dowlath Beevi, the mother of
the detenu- Bilal. The facts and circumstances are the same as in the case of
Abdul Kader, dealt with above. In fact, both the Habeas Corpus Petitions were
heard together by the High Court on the basis of common questions of fact and
law raised. Here also the position is identical and the representation was made
to the Ministry of Home Affairs by the mother of the detenu written in Tamil
and presented through an advocate on 4.7.2005 and it was also dealt with in the
same manner as was done in the case relating to Abdul Kader. The materials are
also identical and it is in this context, that the learned counsel submitted
that the arguments are common and the arguments dealt with in the earlier
appeal would cover his case as well. In the light of this position and in view
of our conclusion recorded earlier in respect of the order of detention of
Abdul Kader, all that is called for is to hold that the High Court was
justified in dismissing the writ petition filed on behalf of the detenu Bilal.
In that view, we confirm the decision of the High Court in Habeas Corpus
Petition No. 90 of 2005 and dismiss this appeal.