Authorities duty-bound to consider representation against preventive detention with utmost despatch: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that the competent authority is duty-bound to consider a representation made against an order of preventive detention with utmost urgency [S Amutha v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others].."For, in the matter of considering representation made against detention order, the Competent Authority is duty bound to do so with utmost despatch," a Division Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar noted..The Court was hearing an appeal against a 2021 judgment of the Madras High Court, which rejected a writ petition challenging the detention order passed by a District Collector and District Magistrate under the Tamil Nadu Act.The detenu had made a representation against this order on July 30, 2021, and the same was received in the office of the concerned authority on August 18, 2021. The Minister finally cleared the file after two months, on October 20, 2021. The competent authority stated that the delay of two months was caused due to it being pre-engaged with other official work..Taking note of the circumstances of the case, the top court at the outset observed that:"The vague explanation of being pre-engaged with other official work for more than two months, cannot be countenanced in law. Notably, no details of the official work have been furnished, much less to indicate that it was relatively so urgent that the obligation to decide the representation against detention order with promptitude could wait for two months."While allowing the appeal, the Court noted,"Even if, it may not be a case of lethargy of the Competent Authority to consider the representation, the time period of over two months spent in doing so, cannot be countenanced. It does not require such a long time to examine the representation concerning preventive detention of the detenu."Thus, the Court directed that the detenu be set free forthwith, if not required in connection with any criminal case pending against him. Consequently, the judgment passed by the Madras High Court was set aside..Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu, Advocate-on-Record MP Parthiban and Advocates AS Vairawan, R Sudhakaran, Shalini Mishra, T Hari Hara Sudhan and Vikash GR appeared for the petitioner.Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General V Krishnamurthy, Advocate-on-Record Joseph Aristotle S and Advocates Preeti Singh, Nupur Sharma and Sanjeev Kumar Mahara appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]