Madras HC quashes preventive detention over unexplained eight-day delay in deciding detainee’s representation

Raj, aged 26, was detained as a “Goonda” under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by an order dated 22 June 2026.

He challenged the detention by habeas corpus petition.

The principal ground argued was delay in considering his representation, dated 25 June 2026: the Government received it on 6 July 2026, and the rejection letter was sent on 17 July 2026.

The State submitted that the detention order was valid and that any delay caused no prejudice.

1. Whether the unexplained delay in considering and disposing of Raj’s representation vitiated his continued detention.

2. Whether the detention order should be quashed and Raj released.

Article 22(5) of the Constitution requires the Government to consider and dispose of a detenu’s representation as soon as may be, with urgency and without avoidable delay; an unexplained delay may render continued detention impermissible.

Relying on Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 1 SCC 417, the Court stated that the number of days is not determinative; the relevant question is whether the delay has been properly explained.

It also relied on Ummu Sabeena v. State of Kerala, 2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC, regarding the constitutional importance of procedural safeguards and prompt consideration of representations.

The representation was received by the Government on 6 July 2026, and the rejection letter was sent on 17 July 2026.

The Court found an eight-day delay in the processing period recorded in Columns 4 to 14 of the proforma and held that the State had provided no acceptable explanation for it.

Applying Article 22(5) and the cited precedents, the Court concluded that the unexplained delay breached the requirement of prompt consideration and vitiated the continued detention.

It directed that Raj be released forthwith unless his detention was required in connection with another case.