Back
2011 (5) Supreme Court Cases 244
MARKANDEY KATJU & SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR & GYAN SUDHA MISRA JJ.
REKHA - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF T.NADU TR.SEC.TO GOVT. & ANR – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 755 of 2011 with Nos. 757-57, 759 759-60 and 762-64 of 2011
Decided on : APRIL 05, 2011
Constitution of India-Articles 21 and 22-Preventive detention-Fundamental rights are meant for protecting civil liberties of people, and not to put them in jail for a long period without recourse to a lawyer and without a trial-Article 22 cannot be read in isolation but must be read as an exception to Article 21-An exception can apply only in rare and exceptional cases, and it cannot override main rule. (Paras 14 to 22)
(1982) 1 SCC 271; (1974) 4 SCC 573; (2006) 2 SCC 664; (2006) 9 SCC 711; (2002) 7 SCC 129, (1975) 3 SCC 198; (1998) 1 WLR 503 (CA); AIR 2011 SC 308 ; JT 2011 (2) SC 527 ; 287 U.S. 45 (1932); (2008) 3 SCC 613; (2006) 8 SCC 212; (2007) 2 SCC 1; (1995) 4 SCC 51; (1981) 4 SCC 1981; (1987) 2 SCC 22; 341 US 123; (1881) 6 QBD 376-Relied on.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The validity of preventive detention orders is scrutinized, especially regarding the sufficiency and reliability of the material used to justify detention (!) (!) .
Fundamental rights, particularly Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, are central to the analysis. The right to personal liberty (Article 21) is fundamental, and any exception under preventive detention must be narrowly construed, ensuring procedural safeguards are strictly followed (!) (!) .
The procedural safeguards mandated by law are vital and must be strictly adhered to. Any deviation or technical lapse, such as lack of detailed information about similar cases or bail orders, can render a detention order illegal (!) (!) .
The detention order cannot rely solely on bald or ipse dixit statements regarding the imminent release of the detainee on bail without concrete details of such bail cases, including dates, court orders, or case numbers (!) (!) .
The existence of pending criminal cases and the availability of the ordinary law to address the alleged activities are significant considerations. If the ordinary law is sufficient, the use of preventive detention may be deemed unnecessary and illegal (!) (!) .
The detention order must be based on material that indicates a real and imminent threat, and not merely suspicion or vague allegations. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be supported by reliable and specific evidence (!) (!) .
The right to legal representation and the procedural requirements for detention are fundamental. Violations of these procedural safeguards can lead to the quashing of the detention order (!) (!) .
The overall constitutional scheme emphasizes that preventive detention is an exception to the fundamental right to liberty and should be exercised within narrow limits, ensuring that it does not become a tool for arbitrary detention (!) (!) .
When challenging a detention order, courts must examine whether the law was properly applied, whether procedural safeguards were followed, and whether the detention was justified based on reliable material, especially in relation to pending criminal proceedings or availability of the ordinary law (!) (!) .
The ultimate aim is to safeguard civil liberties and prevent misuse of preventive detention laws, ensuring that such orders are only issued when absolutely necessary and supported by concrete, reliable evidence.
JUDGMENT :
MARKANDEY KATJU, J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 755 OF 2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Appeal has come up in a reference made by a two Judge Bench of this Court by order dated 15.03.2011.
2. The detenu in this Appeal Ramakrishnan (whose wife Rekha has filed this Appeal) has been detained by a detention order dated 08.04.2010 passed under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug- offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, on the allegation that he was selling expired drugs after tampering with the labels and printing fresh labels showing them as non-expired drugs. The habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of the detenu before the Madras High Court challenging the said detention order has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 23.12.2010. Hence, this Appeal.
3. Several grounds have been raised before us, but, in our opinion, this Appeal is liable to succeed on one ground itself, and hence we are not going into the other grounds.
4. The detention order reads as under :-
"No. 199/2010 Dated 08.04.2010
DETENTION ORDER
Whereas I, T. Rajendran, IPS., Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, is satisfied that the person known as Tr. Ramakrishnan, male aged 35, S/O Devaraj, No. 82-B, South Mada Veethi, Villivakkam, Chennai-49 is a Drug Offender as contemplated under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make the following order.
Now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred on me by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) read with orders issued by the Government in G.O. (D) No. 6, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 18th January, 2010 under sub- section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, I hereby direct that the said Drug Offender Tr. Ramakrishnan, S/o Devaraj, be detained and kept in custody at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
Given under my hand and seal of this office the 8th day of April, 2010."
5. The relevant part of the grounds on which the said detention order has been made is as follows :-
"Thiru. Elango, M. Pharm, male aged 43, S/O Ramasamy is working as a Drug Inspector, Drug Control Department, Perambur Range, Zone-II, D.M.S. Complex, Teynampet, Chennai-18. On 15.03.2010, Thiru. Elango appeared before the Inspector of Police, Crimes P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station and lodged a complaint against Thiruvalargal, Prabhakar @ Ravi, 2) Venkatesan, 3) Sanjay Kumar, 4) Sekar, 5) Baskar, 6) Pradeep Kumar Chordia and 7) Meenakshi Sundaram. In his complaint, he has stated that expired drugs collected from the medical shops of Chennai city and Suburban used to be dumped at dump yard of Corporation ground at Ezhil Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Chennai. On 15.3.2010, Thiru, Elango received a secret information that expired drugs dumped at the dump yard at Corporation ground, Ezhil Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Chennai, were taken by Thiru. Prabhakar @ Ravi residing at the first floor of No. A-6/541, 151st Street, Muthamizh Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Chennai and by keeping the same with his associates tampered the same tampering the original labels and printing fresh labels to make it appear as though they are not expired drugs and redistribute the same for sale to the general public."
6. In para 4 of the grounds of detention, it is stated :-
"4. I am aware that Thiru. Ramakrishnan, is in remand in P.6, Kodungaiyur Police Station Crime No. 132/2010 and he has not moved any bail application so far. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru. Ramakrishnan are taking action to take him on bail in the above
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
