Chennai: The Madras high court has quashed Goondas Act slapped on Tamil activists Thirumurugan Gandhi of May 17 Movement and three others as the authorities delayed their representations challenging the detention under the Act.
When the petitions filed by them came up for hearing before the division bench comprising Justices A. Selvam and P. Kalaiyarasan, the bench passed the order.
The Royapettah, Egmore, Saidapet, Nungambakkam and Teynampet police registered a case against them for staging agitation without permission and causing a disturbance. The Marina police also alleged that on May 21, 2017, at 6 pm, under the leadership of Thirumurugan, wrongfully assembled near Nethaji statue on Marina beach and raised slogans in support of Sri Lankan Tamils violating the orders of the police. They also caused disturbance to the normal traffic. Thirumurugan asked his party members to damage the police vehicle and buses and argued with the police personnel. They were arrested and detained under Goondas Act on May 28, 2017.
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the offences alleged to have been committed was not prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order as per section 2 (f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. There has been a discrepancy on the date of remand between the remand report and remand order.
Advocate General denied the allegation and stated that police passed the detention order against him on May 28, 2017, after considering various aspects and facts. They received the order on the next day. They could give representation within 12 days from that date.
The bench said that all the representations given by Thirumurugan were not disposed of within the stipulated time and there is a delay in disposal of every representation. It shows the total inaction on the part of the concerned authorities. Such delay in the disposal of the representations affects the right of the detainee guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. Therefore, on this ground alone, this court is of the considered view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.
