High CourtDivision Bench2011-03-15Matter referred to larger Bench; Leave granted;...

Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government & Anr.

Case / Petition Number:Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 576 of 2011

Neutral Citation:[2011] 3 S.C.R. 885

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Markandey Katju
Gyan Sudha Misra
Judgment Date: 2011-03-15
Court Decision / Holding: Leave granted. The papers of these Appeals were referred to the Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger bench to resolve the underlying conflict of opinions among prior judgments. The matter is to be placed before a larger bench; the period of detention was to be monitored in the interim.
Final Disposition: Matter referred to larger Bench; Leave granted; papers to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger bench.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rekha

Respondents

State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.V. Viswanathan
• K.K. Mani
• Abhishek Krishna
• Mayur R. Shah
• S. J. Aristotle
• Ahanthem Rohen Singh
• Bob
• Prabhu Ramasubramanian
• Priya
• Aristotle
• V.G. Pragasam
• V. Mohana
• Abhishek K.
• Vijay Prashant
• G. Ananda Selvam
• Andrew Jaimon
• A. Santha
• Kumaran
• Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure
• Guru Krishna Kumar
• Akshat Hansaria
• Mamta Chandel
• Abhay Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Altaf Ahmed
• Promila
• S. Thananjayam

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court special leave petition challenges a detention order under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bottleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. The Madras High Court had disposed of a related matter in December 2010. The central issue is whether the detention order remains legally valid when no bail application was pending at the time of its passage and the detenue was already in custody in a criminal case on the same facts. The petitioners’ counsel argued that such detention is legally impermissible, citing earlier Supreme Court decisions (T. V. Sravanan alias S.A.R. Prasana Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi v. State through Secretary and Anr.; A. Shanthi (Smt.) v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Ors.; Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.) which held that detention where no bail is pending and the detainee is in jail is illegal. The State relied on Geetha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. and Ibrahim Nazeer v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., arguing that subjective satisfaction may be drawn from circumstances such as bail granted in similar cases. A conflict among these decisions prompted the Supreme Court to refer the matter to a larger bench for resolution. The Court granted leave, indicated that the matter would be placed before the Chief Justice of India for a larger bench, and noted that the detention period was due to expire around 17.04.2011. The order directs that any prayer for temporary relief may be made before the larger bench, and ultimately the papers are to be referred for a definitive ruling on the point of law involved.

Provisions of Law Cited

Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bottleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, Section 3

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants argued that passing a detention order under Section 3 while no bail application was pending and while the detenue was already in jail on related charges renders the detention illegal. They relied on earlier Supreme Court cases holding that detention in such circumstances is impermissible when the detainee is in custody on the same facts. They urged that the conflict among the Court’s decisions requires a larger Bench to resolve the inconsistency and to safeguard due process.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that absence of a pending bail application does not automatically render detention illegal if there is subjective satisfaction based on the circumstances, including the fact that bail has been granted in similar cases. They rely on Geetha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ibrahim Nazeer v. State of Tamil Nadu to argue that detention can be valid even without a pending bail application, if supported by comparable circumstances.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
T. V. Sravanan alias S.A.R. Prasana Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi v. State through Secretary and Anr.	(2006) 2 SCC 664	Mentioned Only	Cited in the judgement as part of the background, not specifically distinguished or overruled.
A. Shanthi (Smt.) v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Ors.	(2006) 9 SCC 711	Mentioned Only	Cited for context; not treated as binding authority in this decision.
Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.	(2002) 7 SCC 129	Mentioned Only	Cited as background authority; not overruled or distinguished here.
Geetha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.	(2006) 7 SCC 603	Mentioned Only	Cited to support the proposition that detention can be sustained despite absence of pending bail in certain circumstances.
Ibrahim Nazeer v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.	(2006) 6 SCC 64	Mentioned Only	Cited to illustrate the fellow principle regarding subjective satisfaction in detention decisions.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government & Anr. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2011] 3 S.C.R. 885 ## REKHA A _v._ STATE OF T. NADU TR. SEC. TO GOVT. & ANR .. (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No . 576 of 2011) MARCH 15, 2011 B . [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] _Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bottleggers, Drug- Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, and Slum_ C - - _Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 s. 3 Detention order under- Legality of- Conflict of opinion on the point that since no bail application was pending when the detention order u/ s. 3 was passed, hence, the detention order was illegal as the detenue was already in jail in a criminal case on the same_ D - _facts Matter referred to larger Bench._ _T. V. Sravanan alias_ S.A./l _Prasana Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi vs.State through Secretary and Anr._ (2006) 2 SCC 664; A. _Shanthi(Smt.) vs. Govt. of T.N. and_ Ors. (2006) 9 sec E 711; _Rajesh Gulati vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr._ (2002) 7 SCC 129; A. _Geetha vs.State of T.N. and Anr._ (2006) 7. SCC 603; _Ibrahim Nazeer vs. State ofT.N. and Anr._ (2006) 6 sec 64 - referred to. ||||Case|CaseLawReference:||F| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |t2006) 2|t2006) 2|t2006) 2sec|sec664|Referredto.|Para 7|| |(2006) 9|(2006) 9|(2006) 9sec|sec111|Referredto.|Para 7|| |(2002)|(2002)_1_|_1_sec|sec129|Referredto.|Para 7|G| |· (2006)|· (2006)_1_|_1_sec|sec603|Referredto.|Para 8|| |(2006) 6|(2006) 6|(2006) 6sec|sec64|Referredto.|Para 8|| 885 H ## 886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20111 3 s.c.f{. ## A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).576 of 2011 From the Judgment & Order dated 23.12.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in HCP No. 792 of 2010. B ## WITH SLP(Crl) NO. 1859 of 2011, 2237 of 2011, 540 of 2011, 578 of 2011, 580 of 2011, 584 of 2011, 676 of 2011 c c K.V. Viswanathan, K.K. Mani, Abhishek Krishna, Mayur R. Shah, S. J. Aristotle, Ahanthem Rohen Singh, Bob, Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Priya, Aristotle, V.G. Pragasam, V. Mohana, Abhishek K., Vijay Prashant, G. Ananda Selvam, Andrew Jaimon, A. Santha, Kumaran, Ravindra Keshavrao 0[Adsure, Guru Krishna Kumar, Akshat Hansaria, Mamta ] Chandel and Abhay Kumar for the petitioner. Altaf Ahmed, Promila, S. Thananjayam for the Respondents. E The following Order of the Court was delivered ## **ORDER** Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties. F Leave granted. These Appeals have been filed against the impugned common judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 23.12.2010. G The facts have been stated in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here. Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel appearing for some of the appellants in these Appeals, submitted that since no bail H application was pending when the detention order in question REKHA _v._ STATE OF T. NADU TR. SEC. TO GOVT. 887 & ANR. > under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous A > Activities of Bottleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 was passed, hence the detention order in question was illegal as the appellant was already in jail in a criminal case on the same facts. Hence, there B > was no likelihood of his release. B > It appears that there is some conflict of opinion on the aforesaid point. Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel, has relied on judgments of this Court in _T. V. Sravanan alias_ S.A.R. _Prasana Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi Vs. State through Secretary and Anr.,_ (2006) 2 SCC 664; A. _Shanthi (Smt.) Vs. Govt. of T.N. and Ors.,_ (2006) 9 SCC 711; and _Rajesh Gulati Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr._ (2002) 7 sec 129, wherein it was held that if no bail application was pending and the detenue was already, in fact, in jail in a criminal case, the detention order under the preventive detention is illegal. C D On the other hand, Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, has relied on the judgments of this Court in A. _Geetha Vs. State of T.N. And Anr._ (2006) 7 SCC 603; and _Ibrahim Nazeer Vs. State of T.N. and Anr.,_ (2006) 6 SCC 64, wherein it has been held that even if no bail application is pending but if in similar cases bail has been granted, then this is a good ground for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to pass the detention order. E Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel, has, however, submitted that in the decisions cited by him it was mentioned in the detention order that in similar cases bail had been granted. Despite this the detention order has been held to be illegal. There seems to be conflict between the decisions cited by Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel, and the decisions cited by 888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ## [2011) 3 S.C.R. - A Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel. Hence, in our opinion, the matter should be considered by a larger bench for resolving this difference of opinion. - Let the papers of these Appeals be placed before Hon'ble - 8[the ][Chief ][Justice ][of ][India ][for ][constituting ][a ][larger ][bench. ][Since ] the period of detention is expiring on 17 .04.2011, we would request Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger bench at the earliest otherwise these Appeals would become infructuous. C Any prayer for temporary relief may be made before the larger bench. N.J. Matter referred to larger Bench.