SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A. Maimoona Appellant with Dowlath Beevi
Vs.
State of T.N.
Crl.A.No.1673 of 2005
(S.B.Sinha and P.K.Balasubramanyan JJ.)
16.12.2005
P.K.Balasubramanyan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The 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. On 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.
4. The 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.
5. The 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 materials available.
7. Thus, 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. Crl.
A No. Of 2005 @ S.L.P (Crl.) No. 4611 OF 2005
8. Leave granted. 9. No special or separate arguments were addressed in this
appeal. The 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.