Back
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., G. GIRISH
Farsana K – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By The Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Home And Vigilance Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
The petitioner is undergoing detention pursuant to Ext.P1 order dated 05.06.2024 issued by the competent authority under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAAP Act’ for brevity). He has approached this Court seeking the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to set him at liberty.
2. It appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court, seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for release of the detenu by filing W.P(Crl.) No.743 of 2024. While assailing the order of detention, the following contentions were raised:
ii) Neither the Detaining Authority nor the Sponsoring Authority had read out and explained to the detenu the report of the Sponsoring Authority.
iii) There is a delay of one month and 25 days from the last prejudicial activity to the date of detention order which would vitiate the aforesaid order.
iv) The order of detention was not approved by the Government within twelve days as required under Section 3(3) of KAA(P)A.
v) The first crime reckoned by the authorities concerned for the classification of the detenu as a
The court affirmed that detention orders remain valid even if representations are considered after confirmation, provided they are independently reviewed by the government.
The court established that strict compliance with procedural requirements in preventive detention laws is essential to protect individual liberties, and any failure to do so renders the detention ord....
The court held that delays in executing detention orders are not fatal if justified by circumstances, emphasizing compliance with statutory requirements under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Preve....
The violation of a detenue's rights under Article 22(5) leads to the quashing of detention orders when there is inordinate delay in considering representations.
(1) Law of preventive detention must not only comply with Article 22 of Constitution, but also fulfill mandate of Articles 21 and 14.(2) Preventive detention – If consideration of representation made....
Point of law : words 'shall afford him the earliest opoortunity of making a representation against the order' in Article 22(5) of the Constitution suggest that the obligation of the Government is to ....
Detention order quashed - State failed to discharge its obligation in deciding representation expeditiously and moreover Central Government has not decided representation till date which is fatal and....
Detention orders must provide independent consideration of a detainee's representation and inform them of rights to challenge, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
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
