Kiran Raj

The Madras High Court issued directions in a habeas corpus petition challenging a preventive detention order dated October 26, 2024. “The court noted delays in ongoing investigations and issued directions to senior officials, including the Director General of Police (DGP), to file affidavits addressing these concerns. The matter has been scheduled for further consideration on January 30, 2025.”

The habeas corpus petition was filed by Gaja Lakshmi, the wife of the detenu, contesting his preventive detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The detenu was identified as an "A+ category offender" with a history of 26 criminal cases. The petitioner, represented by Advocate T. Udayakumar, contended that the detention order was passed after undue delays in investigations and processing.

The petitioner argued that the delay in initiating legal proceedings adversely affected the detenu’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The submission raised concerns over the lack of progress in many pending cases, several of which were unresolved for over a decade.

The state, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor R. Muniyapparaj, countered the arguments by providing a detailed history of the detenu's criminal record. It was submitted that the detenu had been involved in serious offenses, including charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (murder), robbery, and extortion. The state argued that the detention was necessary to maintain public order and ensure safety.

The Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that procedural measures were in place to address pending investigations. He submitted that the delays were due to the complexity of cases and resource limitations but assured the court that the state remained committed to addressing these issues.

The bench, comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice M. Jothiraman, reviewed the submissions made by both parties and noted systemic inefficiencies contributing to the delays. The court observed that prolonged investigations and judicial delays undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Referring to the status of cases involving the detenu, the court noted that many were categorized as “not taken on file,” a designation the court found inconsistent with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It stated: “The categorization of cases as ‘not taken on file’ is not recognized under the CrPC. Such practices require immediate rectification.”

The court observed that periodic reviews by senior officials, including the Superintendent of Police and the Commissioner of Police, were necessary to ensure timely investigations. It stated: “Regular monitoring by senior officials is essential to prevent lapses in the investigation process.”

Additionally, the court addressed the role of judicial officers in expediting the scrutiny of final reports filed by the police. It stated: “Judicial officers must ensure that final reports are scrutinized promptly, as undue delays in this regard affect the commencement of trials.”

“The court stated: “Dedicated teams at various levels should be appointed to manage investigations efficiently and ensure adherence to procedural requirements.”

The court issued several directives to address the issues highlighted in the petition:

1. Affidavit Submission: The DGP was directed to file an affidavit detailing the reasons for delays in investigations, steps taken to address pending cases, and measures for accountability within the police force.

2. Review of Case Categorization: The court instructed law enforcement agencies to review all cases labeled as “not taken on file” and align their categorization with statutory provisions under the CrPC.

3. Monitoring Mechanism: Senior officials, including the Principal Secretary, Home Department, and the DGP, were tasked with conducting periodic reviews of pending investigations and ensuring timely progress.

4. Witness Protection Scheme: The state government was directed to frame a Witness Protection Scheme under Section 398 of the BNSS to safeguard witnesses from intimidation, ensuring fair trials.

5. Judicial Oversight: Judicial officers were instructed to expedite the scrutiny of final reports. Instances of delay were to be reported to the Principal District Judge or the High Court for appropriate action.

During the hearing, the court addressed the withdrawal of an application filed by the learned Attorney General. The application sought deliberations with the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) before further proceedings. The court granted permission for withdrawal, stating: “The application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to refile, if required.”

The court also issued notice on a separate application filed during the proceedings and deferred its consideration to January 30, 2025, due to the absence of the Amicus Curiae after 2:30 p.m. It stated: “Since Mr. Narayan, learned senior counsel (Amicus Curiae), is not available post 2:30 p.m., list the application on 31.01.2025.”

Case Title: Gaja Lakshmi v. The State Rep By, State Of Tamil Nadu & Others

Case Number: HCP No. 3189 of 2024

Bench: Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice M. Jothiraman

[Read/Download order]