Unexplained Delay In Deciding Detenu's Plea For Release Renders Continued Detention Illegal: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a preventive detention order after holding that the continued detention of the detenu became illegal due to the State Government's unexplained delay in deciding his representation for release. In doing so the court said that any unreasonable and unexplained delay in considering a representation violates the constitutional mandate under Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution.The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by the detenu's wife challenging his preventive detention under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. The detention order had been passed on the basis of eight criminal cases pending against the detenu and was subsequently approved and confirmed by the State Government.The Court observed:"There is delay of 32 days even from the date of the receipt of the remarks from the District Collector prior thereto from the date of representation considerable time was taken to call for the remarks which remarks were also send taking a long time. Taking such a long time for decision on representation in the matter of detention is most unreasonable. Decision has to be taken with promptness as the personal liberty of an individual is involved which is a fundamental right of an individual of which one cannot be deprived save by authority of law under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There may be, many times, genuine reasons for delayed decision but for such delays, there should be reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the Court, which should be set forth in the order deciding the representation or in any case in the counter-affidavit filed with supporting material.So, in the present case, there is unexplained delay from the date of receipt of the remarks from the Collector on the representation of the petitioner. The continued detention of the detenu becomes impermissible pursuant to the order of the detention."The petitioner challenged the detention order primarily on the ground that although the detenu submitted a representation in October 2025, after the State Government confirmed the detention order, it was rejected only in January 2026. It was contended that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay in its consideration, rendering the continued detention illegal. The petitioner also argued that the detaining authority had failed to record its satisfaction regarding the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail despite his being in judicial custody in one of the criminal cases when the detention order was passed.The State submitted that after receiving the detenu's representation, it forwarded the same to the District Collector for remarks, which were received before the Government passed the order rejecting the representation. However, it conceded that while the relevant dates were mentioned, neither the rejection order nor the counter-affidavit furnished any explanation for the delay at the various stages of processing the representation. It further contended that such delay would render only the continued detention illegal and would not affect the validity of the original detention order.Agreeing with the petitioner, the High Court reiterated that while no prescribed time limit exists for deciding a representation, the Government is constitutionally bound to dispose of it expeditiously. It held that any unexplained delay violates the constitutional mandate under Articles 21 and 22(5) and renders the continued detention illegal. Examining the facts, the Court found an unexplained delay of 32 days even after the District Collector's remarks were received, besides considerable delay in calling for and receiving those remarks. Holding that such delay in matters concerning personal liberty was "most unreasonable", the Bench observed that it remained unexplained either in the order rejecting the representation or in the counter-affidavit.Since the writ petition deserved to be allowed on the ground of unexplained delay alone, the Court did not examine the petitioner's contention regarding the detenu's judicial custody and the absence of satisfaction on the likelihood of his release on bail. It clarified, however, that if the detenu continued to remain in judicial custody in the criminal case, he would not be released from that custody by virtue of the present order. Accordingly, the High Court held the continued detention to be illegal, set aside the detention and confirmation orders, and directed the detenu's release forthwith. Case Title: Cheemparthi Shaheen v. State of Andhra Pradesh & OthersCase No.: Writ Petition No. 34357 of 2025Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D. Purna Chandra ReddyCounsel for the Respondents: Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, Government PleaderClick Here To Read/Download Order

Unexplained Delay In Deciding Detenu's Plea For Release Renders Continued Detention Illegal: AP High Court

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ritika Verma

Unexplained Delay In Deciding Detenu's Plea For Release Renders Continued Detention Illegal: AP High Court

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers