w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Makuko Chukwuka Muolokwo v/s The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Home Department, Bengaluru & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- AT HOME INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17211DL2001PTC112255

Company & Directors' Information:- V HOME PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109331

Company & Directors' Information:- G. P. HOME PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U70102MH2011PTC213056

    Writ Petition (HC) No. 32 of 2020

    Decided On, 03 July 2020

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ABHAY S. OKA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

    For the Petitioner: Nishit Kumar Shetty, Advocate. For the Respondents: V.S. Hegde, SPP.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed Under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the Nature of Habeas Corpus or Writ or order or direction of appropriate nature and quash the order of detention dated 16.03.2020 in No.01/BCP/CRM/PIT- NDPS/DTN/2020 (Annexure-A) passed by the Respondent No.2 as illegal. A writ in the Nature of Habeas Corpus by quashing the further order dated 27.05.2020 passed by the Respondent No.1 in No.HD 01 PND 2020 (Annexure- E). A Writ of direction directing the Respondent No.3 to release the petitioner forthwith. Issue such other Relief/S as it deems fit to grant in favour of the petitioner by this Hon'ble Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the cases.)

Abhay S. Oka, CJ.

1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of detention passed against him on 16th March, 2020 by the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru city, in purported exercise of the powers under the provisions of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short, 'the said Act of 1988').

2. The impugned order of detention was served to the petitioner on 17th March, 2020. The second respondent (for short, 'Detaining Authority') addressed a letter on 18th March 2020 to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Home Department for seeking approval to the impugned detention order and for submitting the same to the Chairman and the members of the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the said Act of 1988. On 6th May 2020, a representation was submitted by the petitioner to the Chairman of the Advisory Board through the Jail Superintendent of the Central Prison, Bengaluru. On 8th May, 2020, the Advisory Board heard the petitioner through video conferencing. A report was submitted on 19th May, 2020 by the Advisory Board and the Government of Karnataka confirmed the order of detention on 27th May, 2020.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on 6th May 2020, the petitioner submitted his representation to the Advisory Board against the order of detention. He pointed out that said representation was submitted through the Jail Superintendent of the Central Prison, Bengaluru. He submitted that the State Government was fully aware of the said representation, as can be seen from a copy of the representation produced at Annexure-R12 to the statement of objections filed on behalf of the Detaining Authority. Annexure-R12 is the representation dated 6th May, 2020 addressed to the Chairman of the Advisory Board by the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru. He submitted that there is an endorsement of the Section Officer of the State Government on the said letter of having received the same on 7th May, 2020. He submitted that the Apex Court, in the case of Smt. Gracy -vs- State of Kerala and another1, has laid down that even if there is a representation made by the detenue addressed to the Advisory Board, the appropriate Government is under obligation to consider the same independent of the opinion of the Advisory Board and if the appropriate Government fails to do so, it will be a violation of fundamental rights conferred on the petitioner under clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Moosa Husein Sanghar -vs- State of Gujarat and others2. He would, (1991) 2 SCC 1 (1993) 1 SCC 511 therefore, submit that continuation of detention of the petitioner has been vitiated.

4. The learned State Public Prosecutor-II submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in the case Smt. Gracy (supra) has been subsequently explained by a coordinate Bench of the Apex Court in the case of R. Keshava -vs- M.B. Prakash and others3. He submitted that the Apex Court had held that in a given case, if a representation is not addressed by detenue to the State Government or a request is not made to the State Government to consider the representation made to the Advisory Board, the failure of the Government to consider the representation is neither unconstitutional nor illegal. He also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar -vs- Union of India and others4. Lastly, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another -vs- Harish Kumar5. The learned State Public Prosecutor would therefore submit that as the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Gracy (supra) has been explained by a coordinate bench of the Apex Court in the case of (2001) 2 SCC 145 (1998) 2 SCC 57 (2008)1 SCC 195 R. Keshava (supra), what binds the Court is the authoritative pronouncement of law in the case of R. Keshava. He submitted that in the present case, there is a failure on the part of the petitioner to forward his representation to the State Government or even to make a request to the State Government to independently consider the representation made to the Advisory Board. The sum and substance of his submission is that there is no violation of constitutional safeguards on the part of the State Government and no interference is called for. He submitted that considering the materials against the petitioner and his propensity, a writ Court should not interfere with the impugned order of detention.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions. Firstly, before considering the legal issue, it is necessary to consider a few factual aspects of the case. The representation dated 6th May 2020, made by the petitioner-detenue to the Chairman of the Advisory Board, was admittedly forwarded by the Chief Superintendent of Central Prison Bengaluru to the Hon'ble Chairman of the Advisory Board on the same day along with a covering letter. A copy of the said letter dated 6th May, 2020 is at Annexure-R12 to the statement of objections filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Detaining Authority. There are two endorsements appearing on the left-hand side below the contents of the letter. When we made query to the learned State Public Prosecutor about the second endorsement of 7th May, 2020 appearing on the letter, he submitted that the said endorsement is by a Section Officer of the Government. Thus, a copy of the representation addressed to the Chairman of the Advisory Board was received by the State Government, which is produced at Annexure-R12 to the statement of objections filed by the Detaining Authority. To the same statement of objections, a letter dated 8th May, 2020 (Annexure-R13) is annexed, which is addressed by the Under Secretary to the Government, Department of Home Affairs to the Additional Chief Secretary of the Government informing the Additional Chief Secretary to produce the petitioner-detenue before the Advisory Board for conducting enquiry through video conferencing. It is further stated in the said letter that an officer of a rank of the Deputy Commissioner of Police who is well conversant with the facts of the case should be directed to be remain present before the Advisory Board.

6. We have perused the report of the Advisory Board dated 19th May, 2020. It records that one Sri. K.R. Jain, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru had participated in the proceedings of the Advisory Board. The Detaining Authority, in the present case, is the Commissioner of Police of Bengaluru city. Thus, the State Government was made aware of the representation made by the petitioner-detenue to the Advisory Board, as a copy thereof was received by a Section Officer of the State Government and the said representation was placed before the Advisory Board during its meeting in presence of a police officer who is subordinate to the Detaining Authority. Therefore, apart from the fact that the representation was received by a Section Officer of the Government on 7th May, 2020, the Deputy Commissioner of Police working under the control of the Detaining Authority was aware of the said representation made by the petitioner on 6th May, 2020.

7. Now, we turn to the legal position. In the case of Smt. Gracy (supra), the challenge before the Apex Court was to the order of detention passed under the said Act of 1988 by the Detaining Authority, which was confirmed by the Central Government, after considering the opinion of the Advisory Board. The stand taken by the detenue before the Apex Court was that it was the duty of the Central Government to independently consider the representation made by him to the Advisory Board. The stand specifically taken by the Central Government before the Apex Court which is noted in paragraph 5 of the said decision is that there was no obligation on the part of the said Government to consider the representation made by the detenue to the Advisory Board inasmuch as the representation has not been addressed to the Central Government. After considering well known decision of its Constitution Bench in the case of K.M. Abdulla Kunhi -vs- Union of India6, the Apex Court noted the principles laid down in the case of Abdulla Kunhi (supra) and held that the obligation on the part of the Government to consider the representation of the detenue is different from the obligation on the part of the Advisory Board to consider the representation at the time of giving hearing to the detenue and that the Government has to consider the representation on its own without being influenced by any such views of the Board. In paragraph 7 of the decision rendered in Smt. Gracy (supra), the Apex Court (1991) 1 SCC 476 recorded the submission of the learned Solicitor General which reads thus:

"7. The learned Solicitor General, however, contended that in the present case there being no representation addressed to the Central Government, the only representation made by the detenu being addressed to the Advisory Board during pendency of the reference, there was in fact no representation of the detenu giving rise to the Central Government's obligation to consider the same. The question is: Whether this contention can be accepted in the face of the clear mandate in Article 22(5) of the Constitution?"

While answering the above submission and the question formulated by it, the Apex Court, in paragraphs 8 and 9 of Smt. Gracy (supra) held thus:

"8. It is undisputed that if there be only one representation by the detenu addressed to the detaining authority, the obligation arises under Article 22(5) of its consideration by the detaining authority independent of the opinion of the Advisory Board in addition to its consideration by the Advisory Board while giving its opinion. In other words, one representation of the detenu addressed only to the Central Government and not also to the Advisory Board does not dispense with the requirement of its consideration also by the Advisory Board. The question, therefore, is: Whether one of the requirements of consideration by government is dispensed with when the detenu's representation instead of being addressed to the government or also to the government is addressed only to the Advisory Board and submitted to the Advisory Board instead of the government? On principle, we find it difficult to uphold the learned Solicitor General's contention which would reduce the duty of the detaining authority from one of substance to mere form. The nature of duty imposed on the detaining authority under Article 22(5) in the context of the extraordinary power of preventive detention is sufficient to indicate that strict compliance is necessary to justify interference with personal liberty.

It is more so since the liberty involved is of a person in detention and not of a free agent. Article 22(5) casts an important duty on the detaining authority to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu at the earliest to afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the detention order which implies the duty to consider and decide the representation when made, as soon as possible. Article 22(5) speaks of the detenu's 'representation against the order', and imposes the obligation on the detaining authority. Thus, any representation of the detenu against the order of his detention has to be considered and decided by the detaining authority, the requirement of its separate consideration by the Advisory Board being an additional requirement implied by reading together clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22, even though express mention in Article 22(5) is only of the detaining authority. Moreover, the order of detention is by the detaining authority and so also the order of its revocation if the representation is accepted, the Advisory Board's role being merely advisory in nature without the power to make any order itself. It is not as if there are two separate and distinct provisions for representation to two different authorities viz. the detaining authority and the Advisory Board, both having independent power to act on its own.

9. It being settled that the aforesaid dual obligation of consideration of the detenu's representation by the Advisory Board and independently by the detaining authority flows from Article 22(5) when only one representation is made addressed to the detaining authority, there is no reason to hold that the detaining authority is relieved of this obligation merely because the representation is addressed to the Advisory Board instead of the detaining authority and submitted to the Advisory Board during pendency of the reference before it. It is difficult to spell out such an inference from the contents of Article 22(5) in support of the contention of the learned Solicitor General. The contents of Article 22(5) as well as the nature of duty imposed thereby on the detaining authority support the view that so long as there is a representation made by the detenu against the order of detention, the aforesaid dual obligation under Article 22(5) arises irrespective of the fact whether the representation is addressed to the detaining authority or to the Advisory Board or to both. The mode of address is only a matter of form which cannot whittle down the requirement of the constitutional mandate in Article 22(5) enacted as one of the safeguards provided to the detenu in case of preventive detention."

(underlines supplied)

8. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Gracy (supra) was rendered by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges. The view taken by the Apex Court in Moosa Husein Sanghar is in terms of what is held in the case of Smt. Gracy (supra).

9. Now we turn to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R. Keshava (supra). The decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Gracy (supra) and R. Keshava (supra) are by the Benches of the same strength. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the decision in the case of R. Keshava (supra), the Apex Court considered its earlier decision in the case of Smt. Gracy and held thus:

"8. On facts we find that in that case the detenu had made a representation to the Advisory Board who considered it before sending its opinion to the Central Government along with the entire record including the representation submitted by the detenu. The Central Government confirmed the order of detention without independent consideration of the detenu's representation sent to it by the Advisory Board. On the above facts the Court formulated the point of law for its consideration as under: (SCC p. 4, para 4) "Whether there has been any infraction of the guarantee under Article 22(5) of the Constitution as a result of Central Government's omission to consider the detenu's representation independent of its consideration by the Advisory Board? The Central Government's stand is that the detenu's representation being addressed to the Advisory Board to which it was submitted during pendency of the reference before the Advisory Board, there was no obligation on the Central Government also to consider the same independently since the representation was not addressed to the Central Government." and made observations as noted hereinabove.

9. In the instant case Respondent 1 in his affidavit has categorically stated:

"I respectfully submit that the Advisory Board has not forwarded the representation filed by the detenu to the State Government and consequently I did not consider the said representation filed by the detenu before the Advisory Board.

I respectfully submit that the Advisory Board has forwarded its report along with the covering letter dated 12-4-2000, to the State Government. However, Respondents 1 and 2 did not receive any representation given to the Advisory Board inasmuch as the Advisory Board has not sent the copy of the representation of the detenu, to the State Government. Therefore, the State Government could not consider the said representation. As the representations were addressed to the Advisory Board alone, there is no obligation on the part of the Superintendent of Central Prison to forward the copy of the representation to the State Government or the Central Government. Consequently, the third respondent has not forwarded the representation to Respondents 1 and 2. I submit that the Advisory Board will be having the records which are sent by the State Government such as the order of detention, grounds of detention and the documents relied upon. Except these documents, the State Government will not furnish any other document to the Advisory Board. However, the documents which were produced by the detenu in the course of hearing before the Advisory Board, do not form part of the records sent by the State Government. In this case, the only extra document which was produced by the detenu was the representation. The copy of the representation was not sent by the Advisory Board to the State Government while sending its report to the State Government."

In paragraph 12, the Apex Court laid down the manner in which the principles laid down in the case of Smt. Gracy (supra) can be read and ultimately, in paragraph 17, it was held thus:

"17. We are satisfied that the detenu in this case was apprised of his right to make representation to the appropriate Government/authorities against his order of detention as mandated in Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Despite knowledge, the detenu did not avail of the opportunity. Instead of making a representation to the appropriate Government or the confirming authority, the detenu chose to address a representation to the Advisory Board alone even without a request to send its copy to the authorities concerned under the Act. In the absence of representation or the knowledge of the representation having been made by the detenu, the appropriate Government was justified in confirming the order of detention on perusal of record and documents excluding the representation made by the detenu to the Advisory Board. For this alleged failure of the appropriate Government, the order of detention of the appropriate Government is neither rendered unconstitutional nor illegal."

(underlines supplied)

10. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Gracy (supra) is to the effect that even if a representation is made by the detenue to the Advisory Board, it is the duty of the appropriate Government to decide the same independently and uninfluenced by the views/opinion expressed by Advisory Board.

Careful perusal of the principles laid down in paragraph 17 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R. Keshava (supra) will show that in absence of a representation addressed to the appropriate Government or absence of the knowledge of the representation having been made by the detenue, the appropriate Government's failure to decide the same independently is not unconstitutional or illegal. However, in the present case, we are dealing with the case where the State Government had a clear knowledge of the representation made by the detenue. Firstly, the representation dated 6th May, 2020 was sent to the Advisory Board through the Chief Superintendent of the Central prison. Secondly, there is an endorsement appearing on the covering letter of the Chief Superintendent of the Central prison, Bengaluru enclosing therewith a copy of the representation made by the detenue. The endorsement is admittedly by a Section Officer of the Government. In the statement of objections filed by the Detaining Authority, it is admitted that the Advisory Board heard the petitioner on his representation. In paragraph 30, there is a specific admission to that effect. The only contention raised in paragraph 31 is that the representation was not given before the first meeting of the Advisory Board. Paragraph 17 of the statement of objections filed by the State Government, it is admitted that the petitioner had made a representation on 6th May, 2020. Paragraph 17 of the statement of objections reads as under:

"17. It is submitted that consequently, the Advisory Board has fixed the date of hearing on 04.05.2020 through video conference vide Letter dated 30.04.2020. A copy of the notice 30.04.2020 is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R9. It is further submitted that the petitioner had made a Representation on 05.05.2020 to the Advisory Board, Government and other through the Superintendent of Central Prison, Bengaluru against the Detention Order. The Advisory Board has heard the Petitioner in respect of the Representation filed by the Petitioner."

(Underline supplied) This clearly indicates that the State Government, despite having a knowledge and having a copy of the representation having been made by the petitioner-detenue, failed to consider the representation. It is admitted by the State Government that the representation was also made to it. Moreover, the Detaining Authority was represented before the Advisory Board by an officer of the rank of the Deputy Commissioner of Police who was subordinate to the Detaining Authority. Therefore, the State Government cannot plead ignorance about the knowledge of the representation made by the petitioner-detenue.

11. In the decision in Smt. Gracy (supra), the representation of the detenu was addressed to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board considered the representation and enclosed the same along with its report to the Central Government. In that case, the Central Government accepted the report of the Advisory Board, without independently applying its mind to the representation of the detenu that was found in the file. It was in this backdrop that the Apex Court held that, the Central Government was under a constitutional duty under Article 22(4) and (5) to consider the representation which was part of the report of the Advisory Board, though the representation was not addressed to the Central Government.

12. In the case of R. Keshava (supra), the representation of the detenu was though addressed to the Advisory Board, the representation did not form part of the report of the Advisory Board to the State Government and the State Government had no knowledge of the representation. The argument of the State Government that the Advisory Board was required to forwar

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

d the representation of the detenu to the State Government was rejected by the Apex Court in the following words: "In the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions, we are unable to observe that the Advisory Board was under an obligation to forward the whole of the record of its proceedings to the State Government. The State Government while confirming the order of detention has to peruse the report of the Advisory Board along with other records, if any, in its possession, and cannot determine the legality of the procedure adopted by the Advisory Board." 13. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the facts of the case before the Apex Court in the case of R. Keshava (supra) were entirely different from the facts of the case in the case of Smt. Gracy (supra). In the case of R. Keshava, the Government had no knowledge of the representation. It is in the light of this factual position that the Apex Court held that the decision in the case of Smt. Gracy (supra) had no application to the facts of the case before it. The other two decisions relied upon by the State are not on the point involved. It must be noted here that the right conferred upon the detenue under clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India is to ensure that a representation made by the detenue is considered at the earliest. 14. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, the decision of the Apex Court rendered in R. Keshava (Supra) will not apply, inasmuch as, the representation of the detenue is not yet decided by the State Government though it has knowledge about the representation from 6th May 2020 and though it was received by it. Moreover, in this case, the Detaining Authority cannot plead ignorance about the representation. Therefore, this is a case where the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Gracy (supra) will squarely apply. Hence, there is a violation of the rights conferred upon the petitioner-detenue under clause (5) of the Article 22 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, continuation of order of detention is rendered illegal. Accordingly, the petition must succeed and we pass the following order: ORDER i) The impugned order dated 16th March, 2020 bearing No.01/BCP/CRM/PIT-NDPS/DTN/2020 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru city vide Annexure-A is hereby set aside; ii) We direct that the petitioner-detenue shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case; iii) The Writ Petition is allowed on the above terms.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

01-10-2020 M/s. Arun Kumar Kamal Kumar & Others Versus M/s. Selected Marble Home & Others Supreme Court of India
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-09-2020 A.B. Venkateswara Rao Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
29-09-2020 The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Another Versus S. Indramoorthy High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Another Versus S. Indramoorthy High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 C. Sivasankaran Versus Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO), Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Mahabooba Jailani Versus The Home Secretary, Home Department (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Sundaram Home Finance Limited Versus Rahul Jayvantrao Kaulavkar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-09-2020 Vijay Vilasrao Sutare Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through, Secretary, home department, State of Maharashtra, Mantralay Mumbai & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-09-2020 Jeevitha Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary, Home,Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
09-09-2020 Mittal Electronics Versus Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
07-09-2020 Badri Narayan Singh & Another Versus The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India, through the Home Secretary North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-09-2020 M/s. Smart Logistics, Unity Building Puthiyapalom, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Managing Partner, M. Gopinath Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Home Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthauram & Others High Court of Kerala
04-09-2020 K. Ebnezer Versus The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
28-08-2020 Ram Vikram Singh (In Person) Versus State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-08-2020 Mahendra Yadav Versus State of Assam Represented By Home Secretary Government of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
27-08-2020 Bhimsen Tyagi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government (Poll), Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-08-2020 Sumathi Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-08-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The Union of India, The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-08-2020 G. Naganna Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
14-08-2020 Salman @ Baba Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
14-08-2020 R. Suresh Kumar Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretary to Home Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-08-2020 Kasmikoya Biyyammabiyoda & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Home Secretary, Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
13-08-2020 A. Pushpaganthi Versus The State rep by its the Home Secretary (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-08-2020 Thripurala Suresh Versus The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
07-08-2020 S. Thangam Versus The Home Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 S. Thangam Versus The Home Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 Mohemmed @ Bava Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary to Home, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
06-08-2020 Vadde Padmamma Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-08-2020 L. Srinivasan Versus The Home Secretary (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 Union of India, Rep by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others Versus Siva Lakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-08-2020 Baliram Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Section Officer Home Department (Special) Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-07-2020 Chegireddy Venkata Reddy Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravai High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-07-2020 C.R. Mahesh Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
17-07-2020 M.G. Jose & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Government of Kerala, Department of Home Affairs, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
16-07-2020 Sasikala Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Sk. Imran Ali Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
14-07-2020 K. Deepa Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Home Affairs, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 Radhakrishnan Versus The Home Secretary (Prison) Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-07-2020 R.N. Arul Jothi & Others Versus The Principal Secretary to Government Home (Cts.V) Department Secretariat Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-07-2020 T. Angayarkanni Versus The Home Secretary (Prison), Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-07-2020 Velankani Information Systems Limited, Represented by its Manging Director, Kiron D. Shah Versus Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-07-2020 Esakkimuthu Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others. Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-07-2020 Vettaiyan Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 V. Vijayakumarasamy Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by The Principal Secretary to Government Home (Transport II) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 R. Thangam Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department (Police IV) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 Sulochani Versus State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by Additional Chief Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-06-2020 Kamala Versus The State represented by its: The Secretary to Government (Home) Prohibition & Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-06-2020 Dhanalakshmi Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai. Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-06-2020 Malar Versus The Principal Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition & Excise Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-06-2020 R. Sampath Versus Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-06-2020 India Pentecostal Church of God, Represented by Its General President, Pastor (Dr.) T. Valson Abraham & Another Versus Government of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
25-06-2020 Sintu Kumar Versus State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
22-06-2020 Vemuri Swamy Naidu Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-06-2020 State of Kerala, Represented by The Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Home & Vigilance Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus P. Pradeepkumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Records Bureau, Office of the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, Residing at Cheruvaickal, Sreekaryaym, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
18-06-2020 Bhawan Singh Garbyal & Another Versus State of U.P. Through Addl. Chief Secy. Home & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
16-06-2020 Jitendra Mohan Singh Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
12-06-2020 P.P. Ramachandra Kaimal Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, Department of Home, Kerala Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
11-06-2020 J. Antony Jayakumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Home (Prison IV), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 M. Sujatha Versus State represented by the Secretary to Government Department of Home & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Surya Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-06-2020 P. Murugesan Versus State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Nayee Soch Society (Regd.) Versus Ministry of Home Affairs & Others High Court of Delhi
02-06-2020 Balraj Versus State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-05-2020 Vijay Ganesh @ Vijay @ Kurangu Vijay Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (IX) Department & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-05-2020 L. Jayalakshmi Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Brij Kishore Dwivedi Versus Union of India, represented by and through the Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi in the Ministry of Home Affairs, South Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Tripura
18-05-2020 RM. Swamy Versus Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2020 Parameshwaran Versus The Home Secretary (Prison),Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-05-2020 Rakesh Versus State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
14-05-2020 Ramakanta Das & Others Versus The State of Tripura Represented by the Secretary, Government of Tripura, Home Department, Agartala High Court of Tripura
12-05-2020 Sheik Madhar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition & Exercise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-05-2020 Allu Srinivasa Rao Versus State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
08-05-2020 Sandip Madhu Nair Versus State, thr Home Deptt & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
07-05-2020 Asa Uma Farooq Versus Union of India, through its its Secrtary, Ministry of Home Afairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-05-2020 R. Sreedhar Versus The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Chief Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-05-2020 A. Palanisamy @ Palaniappan Versus The Home Secretary (Prison IV) Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-04-2020 AM (Zimbabwe) Versus Secretary of State for the Home Department United Kingdom Supreme Court
28-04-2020 HRT Builders, rep. by its Managing Partner Thondepu Ratna Srinivas Versus State of A.P. rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Velagapudi & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
21-04-2020 Deodutta Gangadhar Marathe Versus The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-04-2020 A. Mallikarjuna Versus Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs, Disaster Management Division, Represented by its Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
17-04-2020 Santhosha Nanban Home for Boys, Rep by its Superintendent Dorothy Marry Versus Union of India, Rep by The Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Puducherry, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-04-2020 T. Ganesh Kumar Versus Union of India Represented by Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-04-2020 V. Krishnamurthy Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Prison IV) Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-04-2020 M. Mohamed Saifulla (Advocate – Madras High Court) Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Prison- IV) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-04-2020 (The State) The National Investigation Agency, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Represented by the Superintendent of Police, Assam Versus Akhil Gogoi High Court of Gauhati
06-04-2020 N. Prakash Versus State of Kerala, Represented by its Secretary to Government of Kerala, Department of Home, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
25-03-2020 Elgizouli Versus Secretary of State for the Home Department United Kingdom Supreme Court
20-03-2020 V. Radha Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-03-2020 Jangam Tilak Raj Versus State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
20-03-2020 B. Bhaskar Versus State of Telangana, represented by the Prl.s Secretary (Home), Secretariat Buildings at Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
20-03-2020 Chelliah Versus The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department (Police), Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-03-2020 Radhakishor Tongbram & Others VERSUS The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/Commissioner(Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur & Others High Court of Manipur
18-03-2020 MS (Pakistan) Versus Secretary of State for the Home Department United Kingdom Supreme Court
17-03-2020 Rajesh Gupta Versus Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
16-03-2020 Yesudhas @ Jeshudhas Versus The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court