Unexplained Delay in Decision on Detenu's Representation Unacceptable; Authorities Must Act Diligently & Expeditiously Post-Advisory Board Report: Kerala HC
|The Kerala High Court observed that unexplained delays in deciding and communicating a detenu's representation after receiving the Advisory Board's report is unacceptable, pointing out the need for authorities to act diligently and expeditiously.
The Bench ordered the immediate release of a detenu under preventive detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (the Act). The Court stated that the Government was bound to consider the representations submitted expeditiously, and in case of delay, the Government should be able to explain and justify the same to avoid interference by the constitutional courts in the matter.
A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S. Manu observed, “We conclude that there is unexplained delay in taking decision on the representation of the detenu after receipt of the report of the Advisory Board as also in communicating the decision to the detenu. The 1st respondent ought to have diligently and expeditiously considered the representation, once the report of the Advisory Board was obtained and communicated the decision to the detenu within the shortest possible time.”
Advocate C. Rajendran represented the petitioner, while GP K.A. Anas appeared for the respondents.
A petition was filed to challenge the detention of the detenue under Section 3 of the Act. The detenue had been detained based on a number of charges under the IPC and the Arms Act. The detenue argued that his representation was not considered promptly, violating his constitutional rights under Article 22 of the Constitution.
The High Court noted, “Lethargy, lapses, negligence, delay, callousness etc. on the part of the concerned authorities in dealing with the representations shall be viewed seriously and definitely result in interference by the Constitutional Courts for breach of the mandate of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India.”
The Bench explained that diligence of a very high degree was expected from the authorities in cases of preventive detention as it involved curtailment of some of the “most precious constitutional guarantees.” An utmost expedition, the Court stated, was essential for handling the representations submitted by the detenus invoking their constitutional right under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution.
The Court found no justification for the 19-day delay post-report receipt and stated that unexplained delays in handling representations had to be considered expeditiously – failing which the detention order would be invalidated.
Consequently, the Court declared that the continued detention of the detenu was illegal and directed his release in case his custody was not required in any other case.
Cause Title: Geetha v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024/KER/36325)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates C. Rajendran, B.K. Gopalakrishnan, R.S. Sreevidya and Manu M.
Respondents: GP K.A. Anas