01Facts
The petitioner, father of Velli @ Vellimalai, challenged the District Collector and District Magistrate’s detention order dated 17 April 2026, which classified the detenu as a “Sexual Offender” under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
p. 2The petitioner’s representation was dated 15 May 2026, received by the Government on 18 May 2026, and rejected by a letter sent on 22 June 2026.
p. 3He contended that the 24-day delay shown in the Government’s proforma remained unexplained.
p. 5The State submitted that the detention order was valid and that any delay had caused no prejudice.
p. 302Issues
i.1. Whether the Government’s unexplained 24-day delay in considering the detenu’s representation rendered his continued detention illegal.
pp. 3, 5–6ii.2. Whether the detention order should be quashed and the detenu released on that basis.
p. 603Law Applied
Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 was the statutory basis cited for classifying the detenu as a “Sexual Offender”.
p. 2Article 22(5) of the Constitution requires a representation made on behalf of a detenu to be considered and disposed of “as soon as may be”; it must be handled expeditiously, without avoidable delay.
Under Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 1 SCC 417, the number of days’ delay is not decisive; the relevant question is whether the delay has been properly explained.
pp. 4–5The Court also relied on Ummu Sabeena v. State of Kerala, 2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC, on the constitutional imperative of urgency in dealing with such representations.
p. 5Provisions in the judgment · 1
Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 Section 2
04Reasoning
The Court found from the records that the representation had been received by the Government and that the proforma disclosed a 24-day delay in its consideration.
p. 5No acceptable explanation for that delay had been offered.
p. 5Applying the principles in Rajammal and Ummu Sabeena, the Court held that the unexplained delay breached the requirement of prompt consideration under Article 22(5) and vitiated the detenu’s further detention; the State’s submission that no prejudice had been caused did not alter that conclusion.
pp. 3, 5–605Holding
The Court allowed the habeas corpus petition and set aside the detention order on the ground of the Government’s unexplained delay in disposing of the representation.
p. 6It directed that Velli @ Vellimalai be released forthwith, unless his detention was required in connection with another case.
p. 6Original Court PDF
V.VetrivelanvsThe State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
