In an order passed on Wednesday, the Madras High Court chided authorities for misusing detention powers under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act, 1982..Pertinent observations were made by the Court in disposing of a Habeas Corpus petition that had come up before the Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Sathish Kumar..The petitioner had moved the Court challenging a detention order made under the Goondas Act against his brother. The detenue had been charged for the offences of cheating and forgery under the IPC and arrested for the same in July 2017..Subsequently, bail applications were also made by the detenue. The detention order under the Goondas Act was passed in August on an apprehension that the detenue would be enlarged on bail, while the bail applications were pending consideration..The petitioner submitted that the impugned order makes no mention of an extension of remand. Further, the order was passed without intimating the detenue’s family. The only intimation made was to the Superintendent of the Central Prison..The Court found merit in the petitioner’s submissions. It was also noted that,.“…the fact that in a similar case bail was granted also cannot form the basis for the detaining authority to entertain the apprehension that the detenue would be enlarged on bail. This is especially so, as a closer perusal of paragraph 4 would show that the provisions of law, under which the detenue is booked, are not identical to the other case, which is treated by the detaining authority as being similar to the detenue’s case. There is commonality qua some sections, but not all.”.The Court also found fault in the unexplained delay in passing the impugned order..“…even though, the detenue was arrested on 25.07.2017, the impugned order was passed after a delay of more than a month, that is, on 26.08.2017. Notice in this petition was issued on 18.09.2017, despite which, no counter affidavit has been filed. Resultantly, the delay in passing the impugned order remains unexplained.”.Perhaps most importantly, the Court emphasised that the Goondas Act cannot be misused to detain persons for offences that are civil in nature. The Court remarked,.“…what disturbs us, is that, all adverse cases against the detenue relate to civil transactions. It is because of this reason, that apart from booking the detenue under the provisions of the IPC, the detenue has also been booked under Sections 3 and 4 of the 2003 Act. The detenue may have been indulging in usury, however, that cannot lead to the conclusion that he is a “Goonda”, as defined under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.”.The Court called upon the state to refrain from wantonly and casually using the provisions of the Goondas Act to detain persons who may have, otherwise, infracted non-penal provisions of law. It specifically held that the Goondas Act was not meant to be used for cases of a civil nature..For these reasons, the detention order in question was quashed and the Court ordered that the detenue be released forthwith.
In an order passed on Wednesday, the Madras High Court chided authorities for misusing detention powers under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act, 1982..Pertinent observations were made by the Court in disposing of a Habeas Corpus petition that had come up before the Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Sathish Kumar..The petitioner had moved the Court challenging a detention order made under the Goondas Act against his brother. The detenue had been charged for the offences of cheating and forgery under the IPC and arrested for the same in July 2017..Subsequently, bail applications were also made by the detenue. The detention order under the Goondas Act was passed in August on an apprehension that the detenue would be enlarged on bail, while the bail applications were pending consideration..The petitioner submitted that the impugned order makes no mention of an extension of remand. Further, the order was passed without intimating the detenue’s family. The only intimation made was to the Superintendent of the Central Prison..The Court found merit in the petitioner’s submissions. It was also noted that,.“…the fact that in a similar case bail was granted also cannot form the basis for the detaining authority to entertain the apprehension that the detenue would be enlarged on bail. This is especially so, as a closer perusal of paragraph 4 would show that the provisions of law, under which the detenue is booked, are not identical to the other case, which is treated by the detaining authority as being similar to the detenue’s case. There is commonality qua some sections, but not all.”.The Court also found fault in the unexplained delay in passing the impugned order..“…even though, the detenue was arrested on 25.07.2017, the impugned order was passed after a delay of more than a month, that is, on 26.08.2017. Notice in this petition was issued on 18.09.2017, despite which, no counter affidavit has been filed. Resultantly, the delay in passing the impugned order remains unexplained.”.Perhaps most importantly, the Court emphasised that the Goondas Act cannot be misused to detain persons for offences that are civil in nature. The Court remarked,.“…what disturbs us, is that, all adverse cases against the detenue relate to civil transactions. It is because of this reason, that apart from booking the detenue under the provisions of the IPC, the detenue has also been booked under Sections 3 and 4 of the 2003 Act. The detenue may have been indulging in usury, however, that cannot lead to the conclusion that he is a “Goonda”, as defined under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.”.The Court called upon the state to refrain from wantonly and casually using the provisions of the Goondas Act to detain persons who may have, otherwise, infracted non-penal provisions of law. It specifically held that the Goondas Act was not meant to be used for cases of a civil nature..For these reasons, the detention order in question was quashed and the Court ordered that the detenue be released forthwith.
