S PACKIARAJ Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by one S. Packiaraj, who is the friend of the detenus, viz. (1) Selvin Karate Selvin, son of Dasan Nadar, (2) Jeyakumar, son of Joseph, (.3) Vija Vijaya Rangam, (4) Edwin, son of Soloman, (5) Rathi Kathirvel, son of Rajamani Nadar, (6) John, son of Asirvatham, (7) Velusamy, son of Thirumalaivel, (8) Anand Samuel, son of Edwin Selvaraj, (9) Ravi, son of Rajappoo Nadar, (10) Pagalavan, son of Dorairaj Nadar, (11) Dharman, son of Gopalakrishna Nadar and (12) Karuppussamy, son of Alagarswami Nadar for production of the detenus before this Court and to set them at liberty. Among the twelve detenus, John son of Asirvatham was stated to be died on 14-3-1994.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the above Habeas Corpus petition, it is stated as under: Selvin alias Karate Selvin and his eleven associated are confined in Central Prison at Palayamkottai and their detention is illegal for the following reasons. The detenus were arrested on 27-12-1991 for the alleged offences under Sec. 3 (iii), Sec. 4 and Sec. 6 of the TADA Act and also for the alleged offences committed under I.P.C. The charge-sheet was laid on 14-10-1992 and thereafter the remand was extended purportedly under Sec. 309 Crl.P.C. The remand is to be extended only for a period of 15 days and not beyond that. The detenus are to be produced on 6-2-1995. But to the surprise, the detenus were produced on 3-2-1995 and the remand was extended till 16-3-1995. The said procedure is illegal. Therefore the detention is in violation of Sec. 309 of Cr1. P.C. and Art.21 of the Constitution of India. The detenus were alleged to have attacked one Subbian Pandian and Nallakannu Devar with lethal weapons due to long standing enmity. The said act is purely a law and order problem. Admittedly, the said Subbian Pandian was a good samaritan of all the people of that locality therefore there is no motive to attack him. The respondents maliciously without any ground wantonly invoked the provisions of the TADA Act. The prolonged detention for a period over three years is in violation of Art.21 of the Constitution. The amended TADA Act required the previous approval of the Director General of Police under Sec. 20A of the Act. But the said procedure was not followed in this case. Therefore the detention is vitiated. The fundamental fairness requires that the investigation under the TADA Act must be conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. But it was not done. Therefore the respondents have no jurisdiction to investigate the case. On that score the detention is vitiated under the law. There was no material to implicate the detenus under the TADA Act. Therefore, the detention is violative of Art.21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The respondent in its counter-affidavit stated as under: - The Habeas Corpus petition is not maintainable on the basis of the averments made in the affidavit. In the affidavit it is stated that the petitioner is residing at Madras and he is the friend of all the twelve detenus in this case. No relevant material is set out as to how the present petition, which in the nature of public interest litigation is maintainable. All the detenus in the present case are represented by counsel of their choice and as such the above habeas corpus petition which is filed in the nature of public interest litigation is not maintainable. With regard to the allegation contained in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, it was submitted that the designated Judge of the Tirunelveli Court had addressed a letter to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, informing that he was going on casual leave on 6-2-1995. Therefore the hearing was advanced to 3-2-1995 and the remand of the detenus was extended till 16-3-1995. There is no illegality whatsoever in having adopted this procedure. The detenus are in custody pursuant to the valid order of remand. It is incorrect to state that the provisions of the TADA Act had deliberately been invoked in the present case. The charge sheet in this case was filed as early as on 14-10-1992. Hence the provisions of Act of 1993 has no application to the facts of the present case. For all these reasons it was stated that the Habeas Corpus petition is liable to be dismissed.