R. AMUL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, R.Nithyanandam, S/o. Rajendhiran, aged 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.234/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 30.05.2020 holding him to be a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

(3.) Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there is gross violation of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention. The learned counsel, by placing authorities, submitted that the representation made by the petitioner was not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay.