http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1673 of 2005

PETITIONER: A. Maimoona

RESPONDENT: State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/12/2005

BENCH: S.B. SINHA & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (Crl.) NO.4441 OF 2005) WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1675 OF 2005 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(Crl.) NO.4611 OF 2005)

Dowlath Beevi                                                   \005Appellant Versus State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.                                      \005.Respondents

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.

Crl. A No.                Of 2005@.S.L.P(Crl.) No. 4441 OF 2005

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

justify an order under the National Security Act in the circumstances of the  case.  

4.              The High Court found that there was nothing to show that the  detenu had in fact made a representation to the State Government before the  order of detention and the order cannot be held to be vitiated on the ground  that the State Government has not disposed of the representation.  The Court  further found that there was no acceptable material to show that a  representation was sent to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the  contention in that regard lacked merit.  The court also found that on a  perusal of the materials including the statement made by the detenu in the  case on hand and by the detenue in the connected case, it was clear that  adequate materials  existed to justify the order of detention.  Thus, the order  of detention was upheld by the High Court and the writ petition filed by the  appellant was dismissed.  

5.              The learned counsel for the appellant conceded that there was  no material to show that a representation was made to the State Government   before the order of detention was passed.  Therefore, the first ground urged  on behalf of the appellant in the High Court in support of the challenge to  the order of detention need not detain us in this appeal.  As regards the  representation to the Central Government, it is seen from the counter  affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Government that the representation  made  on behalf of the detenu by his mother was submitted in the Ministry  of Home Affairs on 4.7.2005 through an advocate.  Since it was in Tamil   and it could not be deciphered, it was forwarded  to the District Magistrate  and Collector of Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu and the Government of  Tamil Nadu for getting it translated into English.  That was done on  5.7.2005 itself.  A reminder was also sent on 13.7.2005.  The English  translation of the representation was received on 18.7.2005.  It was put up  before the Under Secretary on 19.7.2005.  The case of the detenu and the  representation were carefully considered and the matter was put up before  the Deputy Secretary on 21.7.2005.  With the comments of the Deputy  Secretary it was put up before the Joint Secretary on 21.7.2005 itself.  On the  same day it was forwarded to the Special Secretary, Ministry of Home  Affairs after being considered by the Joint Secretary.  The Special Secretary  after consideration of the same put up the matter before the Home Secretary  on 22.7.2005.   The Home Secretary after considering all the relevant  aspects, rejected the representation of the detenu on 22.7.2005. The decision  was communicated to the detenu through Home Secretary, Tamil Nadu and  Superintendent Central Prison, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu by way of crash  wireless message dated 25.7.2005.  In the light of this affidavit, the learned  counsel for the appellant argued that there was an unexplained delay from  13.7.2005 to 18.7.2005 in considering the representation.  The learned  counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that since the  representation received long after the order of detention through an advocate  was in Tamil, the same was forwarded to the concerned District Magistrate  and Collector for getting it translated and as soon as the translation was  received, the representation was considered at various levels without any  delay and the same was disposed of in accordance with law.  In the  circumstances of the case,  we find that there is no unexplained delay or  undue delay on the part of the Central Government  in disposing of the  representation made on behalf of the detenu which was handed over to the  Ministry  only on 4.7.2005.  We, therefore, find no merit in the argument  raised  in this regard on behalf of the appellant.  

6.              On a due consideration of the materials relied on by the  Government  and the reasons given by the High Court in refusing to interfere  with the order of detention passed,  we are of the view that adequate  materials exist for the detention of the appellant under the National Security  Act.  In that view, we do not find any merit in the argument that the order of  detention was not justified on the materials available.            7.              Thus, we find no reason to interfere with  the decision of the  High Court.  The decision of the High Court is confirmed and this appeal is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

dismissed.  Crl. A No.                Of 2005 @ S.L.P(Crl.) No. 4611 OF 2005

8.              Leave granted.  9.              No special or separate arguments were addressed in this appeal.   The petition for Special Leave to Appeal  is filed by Dowlath Beevi, the  mother of the detenu- Bilal.  The facts and circumstances are the same as in  the case of Abdul Kader, dealt with above.  In fact, both the Habeas Corpus  Petitions were heard together by the High Court on the basis of common  questions of fact and law raised.  Here also the position is identical and the  representation was made to the Ministry of Home Affairs by the mother of  the detenu written in Tamil and presented through an advocate on 4.7.2005   and it was also dealt with in the same manner as was done in the case  relating to Abdul Kader.   The materials are also identical and it is in this  context, that the learned counsel submitted that the arguments are common  and the arguments dealt with in the earlier appeal would cover his case as  well.  In the light of this position and in view of our conclusion recorded  earlier in respect of the order of detention of Abdul Kader, all that is called  for is to hold that the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition  filed on behalf of the detenu \026 Bilal.  In that view, we confirm the decision  of the High Court in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 90 of 2005 and dismiss this  appeal.  27396