A. MAIMOONAversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

                              A. MAIMOONA                                          A
                                       v.
                  STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

                           DECEMBER 16, 2005

          [S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.]                              B


      National Security Act, 1980-Section 3(2)-Detention Order-Detenue's
case that detention order vitiated for non-consideration of the representation
made to the State Government and the Central Government bu detenue and
                                                                J
non-availability of adequate material-Held: Detention order was justified
                                                                                   c
since adequate material was available for detention-There was nothing to
show that represent~tion was made to State Government, though th~
representation 1:1ade. to the Central Government was considered without
delay-Hence, order of High Court calls for no interference.
                                                                                   D
        Detention Order wns passed against the husband of the appellant under
the National Security Act, 19~0 on the basis of the investigation carr!ed cut
and the statement of t~1·;: c!etenue that he was active member of a terrcr!s\
organisatio:i. Appe!laat - wifo of detcnue-challenged the dctcntior. order ca
the ground of non-consideration of the representation made to the Detaining
Aufaority and ~ll:m to the Ministry by the detenue, and on non-availability of     E
adequate mater!als to detain the detenue. High Court upheld the detention
order holding that there was nothing to show that the dettnu made
representation to the State Government before the detention order and also
to lh·~ Ministry of Home Affairs; and that adequate materials existed to justify
the de-~cntion order. Hence the present appeal.
                                                                                   F
      Appellant - wife of detenue reiterated her contention in the counter
affidavit that the representation made on behalf of detenu was submitted in
the Ministry of Home Affairs on 4.7.2005 through an. advocate and since it
was in Tamil, it was forwarded to the District Magistrate and Collector for
getting it translated into English and on receiving it, the same was considered G
at various levels, and finally the Home Secretary rejected the representation
of the detcnu on 22.7.2005 and thereafter, the decision was communicated to
the detenu and as such there was no unexplained delay in considering the
representation.

                                     877                                           H
    878                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A           Dismissing the appeals, the Court

          HELD: In the circumstances of the case, there is n~ unexplained delay
    or undue delay on the part of the Central Government in disposing of the
    representation made on behalf of the detenu. The representation submitted in
    the Ministry through an advocate was in Tamil, the same was fonvarded to
B   the concerned District Magistrate and Collector for getting it translated and
    as soon as the translation was received, the representation was considered at
    various levels without any delay and the same was disposed of in accordance
    with law. Furt,hermore, the appellant - wife of detenue-conceded that there was
    no material to show that a representation was made to the State Government
C   before the detention order was considered by the detaining authority. Adequate
    materials existed for ihe detention of the detenuc under the National Security
    Act, and as such th~ order of detention was justified and the order of High
    Court does not call for ii~terfercncc. (880-A-G; 881-A-B)

            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1673 of
D   2005.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.2005 of the Madras High Court
    in H.C.P. No. 89 of2005.

                                        WITH
E
            Crl.A. No. 1675 of2005.

            V.G. Pragasam for the Appellant.

          B.R. Handa and S. Balakrishna, Navin Prakash, Ms. Sush:na Suri, S.N.
F   Jha, K..K. Misra and Subramonium Prasa~ for the Respondents.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. Crl. A N_o. 1673 of2005 @. S.L.P (Crl.)
    No. 4441 of 2005                           ·

G           1. Leave granted.

          2. The appellant challenged the detention of her husband under Section
    3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 before the High Court of Madras in
    Habeas Corpus Petition No. 89/50. The said petition was dismissed by the
H   High Court after hearing both sides. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed
          A. MAIMOONA v. STATE OFTAMIL NADU [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.]         879
this appeal by Special Leave.                                                   A
       3. On a report by Head Constable, Gopalakrishna ofNellikuppam Police
Station while investigating an alleged crime, the husband of the appellant was
taken into custody. On being questioned, Abdul Kader the husband of .the
appellant, made a statement which showed that he was an active member of
a terrorist organization "Vidial Velli". It was also found that he was actively B
involved with that organization and other organizations like Al-Umma and
SIMI, organizations which had been banned. In the light of the facts disclosed
by the investigation and in view of the statement made by Abdul Kader, an
order was passed by the detaining authority under the National Security Act
for detention of the husband of the appellant. In the challenge in the High C
Court to the detention under the National Security Act, it was contended that
the order of detention was liable to be set aside on the ground that the
representation made prior to the detention order was not considered by the
detaining authority and that vitiated the impugned order of detention. Secondly,
though a representation was made to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the same
was not considered and thirdly, the grounds of detention do not show any D
material to detain the detenu under the National Security Act. On behalf of
the State it was submitted that no representation was made prior to the order
of detention by the detenu and, therefore, there. was no question of non-
consideration of such a representation vitiating the order of detention. As
regards the representation made to the Ministry of Home Affairs, there was E
nothing to show that any such representation was made before the order of
detention was passed or immediately thereafter. On merits, it was submitted
that there were adequate materials available to justify an order the National
Security Act in the circumstances of the case.

       4. The High Court found that there was nothing to show that the detenu F
 had in fact made a representation to the State Government before the order
 of detention and the order cannot be held to be vitiated on the ground that
 the State Government has not disposed of the representation. The Court
·further found that there was no acceptable material to show that a representation
 was sent to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the contention in that
 regard lacked merit. The court also found that on a perusal of the materials G
 including the statement made by the detenu in the case on hand and by the
 detenue in the connected case, it was clear that adequate material existed to
justify the order of detention. Thus, the order of detention was upheld by the
 High Court and the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
                                                                                H
    880                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A          5. The learned counsel for the appellant conceded that there was no
    material to show that a. representation was made to the State Government
    before the order of detention was passed. Therefore, the first ground urged
    on behalf of the appellant in the High Court in support of the challenge to
    the order of detention need not detain us in this appeal. As regards the           ~

    representation to the Central Government that the representation made on
B behalf of the detenu by his mother was submitted in the Ministry of Home
    Affairs on 4.7.2005 through an advocate. Since it was in Tamil and it could
                                                                                       r
    not be deciphered, it was forwarded to the District Magistrate and Collector
  '
    of Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu and the Government of Tamil Nadu for
    getting it translated into English. That was done on 5.7.2005 itself. A reminder
c   was also sent on 13.7.2005. The English translation of the representation was
    received on 18.7.2005. It was put up before the Under Secretary on 19.7.2005.
    The case of the detenu and the representation were carefully considered and
    the matter was put up before the Deputy Secretary on 21.7.2005. With.the
    comments of the Deputy Secretary it was put up before the Joint Secretary
    on 21.7.2005 itself. On the same day it was forwarded to the Special Secretary,
D Ministry of Home Affairs after being considered by the Joint Secretary. The
  . Special Secretary after consideration by the Joint Secretary. The Special
    Secretary after consideration of the same put up the matter before the Home
    Secretary on 22.7.2005. The Home Secretary after considering all the relevant
    aspects, rejected the representation of the detenu on 22.7.2005. The decision
E was communicated to the detenu through Home Secretary, Tamil Nadu and                r
    Superintendent Central Prison, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu by way of crash wireless
    message dated 25.7.2005. In the light of this affidavit, the learned counsel for
    the appellant argued that there was an unexplained delay from 13.7.2005 to
    18.7.2005 in considering the representation. The learned counsel appearing for
    the Union of India supmitted that since the representation received long after
F the order of detention through an advocate was in Tamil, the same forwarded
    to the soon as the translation was received, the representation was considered
    at various levels without any delay and the same was disposed of in accordance
   with law. In the circum~tances of the case, we find that there is no unexplained
   delay or undue delay on the part Central Government in disposing of the
G representation made on behalf of the detenu which was handed over to the                 /-
   Ministry only on 4.7.2005. We therefore, find no merit in the argument raised
    in this regard on behalf of the appellant.

          6. On a due consideration of the materials relied on by the Government
    and the reasons given by the High Court in refusing to interfere with the order
H   of detention passed, we are of the view that adequate materials exist for the
            A.MAIMOONAv.STATEOFTAMILNADU[BALASUBRAMANYAN,J.]              881

detention of the appellant under the National Security Act. In that view, we    A
do not find any merit in the argument that the order of detention was not
justified on the materials available.

      7. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the High
Court. The decision of the High Court is confirmed and this appeal is
dismissed.                                                                      B
Cr/. A No. 1675 of 2005 @ S.l.P. (Cr/.) No. 4611 OF 2005

        8. Leave granted.

       9. No special or separate arguments were addressed in this appeal. The C
petition for Special Leave to Appeal is filed by Dowlath Beevi, the mother of
the detenu-Bilal. The facts and circumstances are the same as in the case of
Abdul Kader, dealt with above. In fact, both the basis of common question
of fact and law raised. Here also the position is identical and the representation
was made to the Ministry of Home Affairs by the mother of the detenu within
in Tamil and presented through an advocate on 4.7.2005 and it was also dealt D
with in the same manner as was done in the case relating to Abdul Kader.
The materials are also identical and it is in this context, that the learned
counsel submitted that the arguments are common and the arguments dealt
with in the earlier appeal would cover his case of our conclusion recorded
earlier in respect of the order of detention of Abdul Kader, all that is called E
for is to hold that the High Court was justified in dismissing the with petition
filed on behalf of the detenu-Bilal. In that view, we confirm the decision of
the High Court in Habeas Corpus Petition N,o. 90 of 2005 and dismiss this
appeal.

N. J.                                                     Appeal dismissed.     F