The Madras High Court today quashed the detention order against six men booked under Goondas Act for cutting the sacred threads of two persons, citing delay by the authorities in disposing of their representations.
"The authorities caused delay in disposing of the representations made by the detenues. Hence, the detention orders are vitiated on that ground alone," the division bench, comprising Justices S Tamilvanan and C T Selvam said.
The detention order was quashed on habeas corpus petitions filed by the relatives of the six persons.
On April 20 in separate incidents, two senior citizens were attacked and their sacred threads cut allegedly by members of a Dravidian outfit to protest against what they claimed was "denigration" of rationalist leader Periyar E V Ramasamy.
Six of them were later arrested and booked under several sections of IPC, including rioting, wrongful restraint, promoting enmity on grounds of religion or caste and causing public mischief.
On May 13, the City Police Commissioner had invoked the Goondas Act against them.
On the motive, officials had said the activists claimed that "a propaganda vehicle of a rationalist movement was attacked in Tirupur and Periyar's images were denigrated."
They alleged that the members of a particular community had prompted the attack on the vehicle.
The attackers had also threatened the victims with dire consequences if they reported the incident.
Assailing the detention orders as illegal, their kin submitted that the detaining authority misconstrued that the detenus belonged to Dravidar Kazhagam and were affiliated to Dravidar Viduthalai Kazhagam.
They submitted that the youths had never participated nor were involved in the offences as alleged by the authorities and wrong information was submitted to the detaining authority with regard to bail.
They also contended that detention order was passed with malafide intention and that it was 'total misuse' of power under Goonda's Act.
Petitioners' counsel argued that the arrest memo, arrest intimation and remand orders were not furnished to his clients and hence the orders of detention were vitiated.
Orders had been passed without following the procedures established under the Act and without proper application of mind, he said, adding, there was no material to show the detenus were habitual offenders requiring detention under the Act.
Acceding to the submissions, the division bench of Justices S Tamilvanan and C T Selvam quashed the detention, citing delay in disposal of detenus' representations.
