A MAIMOONA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(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.