V.Vetrivelan vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

Court
Madras High Court

HCP(MD) No. 655 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.GUNASEKARAN
HCP(MD) No. 655 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010673822026}
V.Vetrivelan
S/o. Velli,
No.1/19, Parali Pudhur,
K.Pudhur,
Natham Taluk,
Dindigul District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Additional
Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai 9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Petition filed under section Sexual Offender H2-
SXO.To Habeas Corpus, calling for the records from the 2nd respondent
in Detention order No.54/2026 (Roc.4412550/2026/C2) dt.17.04.2026 by
setting aside the said order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent
detenue Velli@Vellimalai ,S/o.V.Vetrivelan, aged 32 years at liberty now
__________
Page  1  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:50:55 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 655 of 2026
detained in the Central Prison, Madurai.
For Petitioner(s) :M/s J.Jeyakumaran
M/s S. Veerathavamani
M/s T.Priya Dharshini
For Respondent(s) :Public Prosecutor
Counter Affidavit Filed By R2 -
17553/2026
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M. NIRMAL KUMAR J.)
The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Velli @
Vellimalai , S/o.V.Vetrivelan, aged 32 years . The detenu has been
detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention order
No.54/2026 (Roc.4412550/2026/C2) dated17.04.2026 holding him to be
a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil
Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this
habeas corpus petition.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
2.
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the
Detaining Authority.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas
corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on
the ground that there is an unexplained delay in considering the
representation of the petitioner, dated15.05.2026. According to the
__________
Page  2  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:50:55 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 655 of 2026
learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated
15.05.2026, the same was received by the Government on 18.05.2026
and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 22.06.2026 There is
a delay of 24 days in Column Nos.5 to 14 of the Proforma dated
07.09.2026 in considering the petitioner's representation. The said
delay of 24 days in considering the representation remains
unexplained and the same vitiates the impugned detention order. In
support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajammal vs.
State of Tamil Nadu , reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417 .
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions,
submitted that after satisfying with the materials placed by the
Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority has passed the
impugned detention order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the
detention order. It is also stated that even if there is any delay in
disposal of the representation, it has not caused any prejudice to the
rights of the detenu and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas
corpus petition
5. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and on perusal of the records, we find that the
representation of the petitioner is dated 15.05.2026, which was
received by the Government and the rejection letter was sent to the
__________
Page  3  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:50:55 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 655 of 2026
detenu on 22.06.2026. As per the proforma submitted the by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is a delay of 24 days in
Column Nos. 5 to 14 in considering the representation of the
petitioner and we find that the said delay remains unexplained.
6. It is trite law that the representation should be very
expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and
without avoidable delay. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of the
representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and
it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal.
From the records produced, we find that no acceptable explanation
has been offered for the delay of 24 days. Therefore, we have to hold
that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.
7. In the above cited decision of the Honourable Supreme
Court in Rajammal 's case, it has been held as follows:
"It is a constitutional obligation of the
Government to consider the representation
forwarded by the detenu without any delay.
Though no period is prescribed by Article 22 of the
Constitution for the decision to be taken on the
representation, the words "as soon as may be " in
clause (5) of Article 22 convey the message that
the representation should be considered and
disposed of at the earliest."
__________
Page  4  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:50:55 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 655 of 2026
8. As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in
above cited 's case, number of days of delay is immaterial
Rajammal
and what is to be considered is whether the delay caused has been
properly explained by the authorities concerned. But, in the instant
case, the inordinate delay of 24 days has not been properly explained.
9. Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs.
State of Kerala-2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC , the Honourable Supreme
Court has held that the history of personal liberty, as is well known, is
a history of insistence on procedural safeguards. The expression 'as
soon as may be',
in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India
clearly shows the concern of the makers of the Constitution
that the representation made on behalf of the detenu,
should be considered and disposed of with a sense of
urgency and without any avoidable delay.
10. In the light of the above discussion, we have no
hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the ground of delay
on the part of the Government in disposing of the representation of
the petitioner.
11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed
and the order of detention in , passed by the second respondent is set
__________
Page  5  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:50:55 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 655 of 2026
aside. The detenu, viz., Velli @ Vellimalai , S/o.V.Vetrivelan, aged 32
years , is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is
required in connection with any other case.
(M.N.K.,J.) (N.G.N.,J.)
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
CM
__________
Page  6  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:50:55 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 655 of 2026
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat
Chennai 9
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate
Dindigul District
Dindigul
3. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison
Madurai District
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
__________
Page  7  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:50:55 pm )

HCP(MD) No. 655 of 2026
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
AND
N.GUNASEKARAN, J.
CM
HCP(MD) No. 655 of 2026
27-10-2026
__________
Page  8  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:50:55 pm )