Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MRS VENMATHI SELVAM versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Decided
10 June 1998
Judges listed
G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Allowed

Citations

Official
[1998] 3 S.C.R. 526 · 1998 INSC 248
Also cited as
  • (1998) 5 SCC 510 (7 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

NANA VA TI, J Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

p. 527, margin C

The appellant is the wife of one Sclvam who has been detained as a Goonda under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, on being satisfied that Sclvam was involved in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and with a view to preventing him from acting in the said prejudicial manner it was necessary to detain him, passed an order of detention on 23.8.97.

p. 527, margin C

The appellant challenged that order before the High Court of Judicature at Madras but her petition failed. She has, therefore filed this appeal.

p. 527, margin D

What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was unreasonable delay on the part of the Government in considering the detenu's representation and, therefore, his continued detention is illegal. The detenu had made a representation on 7.10.97. The Governor's Secretariat received it on 14.10.97. It was despatched to the Government on 15.10.97. lt cailed for remarks of the detaining authority on I 7.10.97. The detaining authority in his tum called for remarks of the sponsoring authority on 21.10.97. The sponsoring authority gave its remarks on 24.10.97 and they were forwarded by the Commissioner of Police to the Government on 28.10.97. The representation was rejected by the Government on 10. I 1.97. The State Government was required to explain how it dealt with the representation between 15.10.97 and 10.11.97. Except stating that it called for the remarks of the detaining authority on 17.10.97 the Government has failed to explain why it had become necessary for it to call for the remarks of the detaining autl)qrity. Even after an opportunity was given by this Court on 12.5.98 to the respondents to file a counter affidavit dealing with the contentions raised in the S.L.P the Government has failed to file an) counter and cxplai.n why it had called for the remarb of the detaining authority and what was the reason for not taking up for con~ideration the represer.tation of the detenu from 21.10. 97 till 10.11.97. Though the delay is not long. it has remained unexplained. Though the delay by itself is not fatal the delay which remains unexplained becomes unreasonablt:. In spite of the this well-settled iegal position the State Government has faikd to explain satisfactorily that it had dealt with the representation to the detenu as promptly as possible. It appears that oblivious of the correct legal position and its obligations in matters of preventive detention it has dealt with the representation of the detenu in a routine manner. This indifference of the Government is the cause for rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegaL We, therefore, allow this appeal, quash and set aside the impugned order of detention and direct that the detenu be released forthwith unless his presence in jail is required in connection with some other case. !.M.A. Appeal allowed.

pp. 527–528, margin E