Unexplained Delay In Disposal Of Detenue's Representation Would Render Continued Detention Impermissible & Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus seeking release of Cheemparthi, who was detained in Central Prison after declaring his detention as illegal and unconstitutional.

The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta held, “So delay in disposal of the representation even after the order of detention has been confirmed by the State must be justified by giving proper and sufficient explanation. If there is no sufficient explanation or a Court finds delay unreasonable and is not satisfied on the grounds for delay, the continued detention would become illegal. The order of detention on such ground would not be illegal or void but pursuant to that order of detention, the detenu cannot be detained any further. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal.”

Advocate D.Purna Chandra Reddy represented the Petitioner while Government Pleader Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

An order of detention was passed under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootlegggers, Dacoits, Drug offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act, 1986) by the Collector & District Magistrate, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. The order of detention was passed considering eight criminal cases pending against him. The State Government accorded approval to the detention order. The Advisory Board submitted its report of the meeting that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. The detention order was confirmed by the State Government for a period of 12 months from the date of detention.

The detenu’s representation was rejected by the State Government during the pendency of the writ petition. Challenging the aforesaid orders of detention, the writ petition for Habeas Corpus was filed to set aside those orders of detention and to release the detenue.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, referred to the judgment in K.M.Abdulla Kunhi and B.L.Abdul Khader v. Union of India and others (1991) wherein the Apex Court held that if the detenu does not exercise his right to make representation against the order of detention but presents the representation to the Government after the Government has confirmed the order of detention, the Government still has to consider such representation and release the detenu if the detention is not within the power conferred under the statute.

Further reference was made to the judgment in Pabitra N.Rana v. Union of India and others (1950), wherein it has been observed that an unreasonable delay in deciding the representation filed by the detenue would be sufficient to render the detention void.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that there was a delay of 32 days even from the date of the receipt of the remarks from the District Collector. It was further noticed that prior thereto, from the date of representation, considerable time was taken to call for the remarks. “Taking such a long time for decision on representation in the matter of detention is most unreasonable. Decision has to be taken with promptness as the personal liberty of an individual is involved which is a fundamental right of an individual of which one cannot be deprived save by authority of law under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There may be, many times, genuine reasons for delayed decision but for such delays, there should be reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the Court, which should be set forth in the order deciding the representation or in any case in the counter-affidavit filed with supporting material”, it added.

Considering that there was an unexplained delay from the date of receipt of the remarks from the Collector on the representation of the petitioner, the Bench stated that the continued detention of the detenu becomes impermissible pursuant to the order of detention.

Holding that the continued detention of the detenu was illegal and he was entitled to release, the Bench allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order of preventive detention passed against the detenu.

Cause Title: Cheemparthi Shaheen v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petition No.34357 of 2025)

Click here to read/download Order