SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Mad) 1800

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM
Premavathy @ Rajathi - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu & Others - Respondents
H.C.P. Nos.1038, 1101, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1085, 1170 and 1226 OF 2003
Decided On : 14 November 2003

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Mr. B. Kumar, Senior Counsel for Ms. Sudha Ramalingam, Mr. P.V.S. Giridhar, Advocate. For the Respondents:Mr. I. Subramanian, Public Prosecutor/Sr. Advocate.

Division Bench decisions holding the restriction on movement not a preventive decision binding authority.

Headnote:Foreigners Act, 1946-Sections 3(2) (e) and 3(2) (g), National Security Act, 1980-Constitution of India-Articles 14, 21, 22 and 141-Order for bail of a foreign national placed in special camp-Movement restricted-Such restriction cannot be termed as preventive detention-Special leave petition dismissed with reasons-Another Bench taking a contrary view is Per incurium and not binding.

Judgment :-

COMMON ORDER:

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

This judgment will dispose of H.C.P. Nos.1038, 1111, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1085, 1170 and 1226 of 2003 as common question of law and also the facts are involved therein. Common arguments were also laid. While H.C.P. Nos.1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1085, 1170 and 1226 of 2003 have been argued by Shri B. Kumar, learned senior counsel, Shri P.V.S. Giridhar, learned counsel argued H.C.P. Nos.1038 and 1121 of 2003.

2. All the petitions are in the nature of habeas corpus petitions and seeking the liberty of the petitioners from the Special Camp, Chengalpattu, wherein they are lodged being Sri Lankan refugees and treating them as foreigners under Sec.3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act. In all the writ petitions, the orders, putting them in the Special Camp, passed by the respondent State Government, are also challenged.

3. All these writ petitioners are the citizens of Sri Lanka and they came to India. There has been a constant influx of Sri Lankan citizens as, the political situation in Sri Lanka had become volatile and unsafe. None of them entered the Indian territory with valid documents and after coming to India they were registered as 'refugees' and were put in the Camps set up for the Sri Lankan refugees along with their families. The present petitioners are, however, directed to be kept in the Special Camp, which is set up at Chengalpattu in what was earlier a Sub Jail. It is a common ground again that practically all the petitioners have been involved in criminal cases. In some of the cases, the investigation is pending while in some others, it is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. In some of the cases, even the trial has commenced. Few of the petitioners are facing the trials for offences under Sec.465, 475 IPC and against one of them even the offence under Sec.489A, 489B, 489C, 489D IPC read with Sec.12(1)(c) of the Passport Act is alleged. Practically, all of them are facing the prosecution under Sec.12(1)(b) and 12(1)(c) of the Passport Act. The allegations against them are of various nature. Few of them have been found to be in possession of forged documents. Some others have been found in possession of fake rubber-stamps of Ramnad and Madurai District Collectors. Some have been found in possession of forged credit cards. Others have been found in possession of forged passports of various countries like Italy, France, Sri Lanka, etc.; some others have also found in possession of fake American Dollars. Some have also been found in possession of jewels purchased by using forged credit cards. They have been picked up from various places in Tamil Nadu. In short, all the petitioners are involved in serious crimes.

4. Few of the petitioners have been ordered to be released on bail while the cases of some others have not reached that stage. But, it is a common ground that all of them are facing the orders passed under Sec.3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act against them, directing them to stay in the aforesaid Special Camp.

5. Learned counsel have taken a position that such orders and the placement of the petitioners in pursuance thereto in the Special Camp amount to 'preventive detention'. The further common ground is that the constitutional safeguards available to a detenu under the preventive detention have not at all been followed while passing the order of detention and even thereafter. For example, no grounds are stated in the detention; there has been no application of mind; petitioners have not been given an opportunity to make representations; nor are their representations considered as required under Art.22 of the Constitution. It is then pointed out that in the garb of placing them in the Special Camp, they are facing a worse lot than the detenus under the preventive detention.

6. It is further commonly argued that their condition in the special camp is pathetic and they have to stay under inhuman conditions. Their personal liberty has been completely en




































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top