Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1053
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.N. BASHA & P. DEVADASS, JJ.
Kalpana & Others
Versus
The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George & Another
H.C.P. Nos. 2191, 2199, 2232, 2276, 2327, 2328, 2329, 2330, 2332, 2333, 2429, 2489, 2490, 2492, 2509, 2510, 2511 of 2012
Decided on: 21-02-2013
For the Petitioner:A.D. Jagdish Chandira, R. Margabandhu, Advocates, I. Subramaniam, Senior Counsel.
For the Respondents: S. Shunmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor.
The power of preventive detention should be exercised in exceptional cases and with great circumspection. The detaining authority must show that the detention order meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority will get vitiated if material or vital facts are ignored or not considered before issuing the detention order.
Headnote:
The court quashed the detention orders passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District, finding them to be vitiated due to non-application of mind, absence of cogent materials, and violation of the detenus' rights under Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The court was hearing 17 Habeas Corpus Petitions challenging the detention orders passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District, under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (TNP Act). The detenus were implicated in a ground case registered for offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Arms Act, and the Explosive Substances Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Detaining Authority had passed the detention orders in a mechanical fashion without applying its mind to the materials available on record. It noted that in one instance, the Detaining Authority had wrongly mentioned the name of the detenu in the grounds of detention. The court also found that the Detaining Authority had arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenus were likely to come out on bail and indulge in further activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, without any cogent materials to support this conclusion. The court held that the detention orders were passed in violation of the detenus' rights under Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the Sponsoring Authority had produced the entire material documents including the dismissal orders of the bail applications dated 03.09.2012 and whether the Detaining Authority was able to peruse the entire voluminous material documents running to 450 pages in one day? 2. Whether the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction in the absence of cogent materials available on record for coming to the conclusion that there is a real possibility or likelihood of the detenus coming out on bail? 3. Whether the impugned Detention Orders passed by the Detaining Authority is in conformity with the rights guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several Supreme Court precedents to hold that the power of preventive detention should be exercised in exceptional cases and with great circumspection. It emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases and held that the detaining authority must show that the detention order meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. The court also held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority will get vitiated if material or vital facts are ignored or not considered before issuing the detention order.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Habeas Corpus Petitions and set aside the detention orders passed by the Detaining Authority. It directed the release of the detenus unless their presence was required in connection with any other case.
K.N. Basha, J. & P. DEVADASS, J.
1. The impugned Detention Orders dated 04.09.2012 [4 Nos.] ; 15.09.2012 [5 Nos.] ; 24.09.2012 [1 No.]; 15.10.2012 [4 Nos.] and 30.10.2012 [3 Nos.] are under challenge in the above Habeas Corpus Petitions. The detenus in all these matters have been implicated in one and the same ground case registered in Crime No.143/2012 for the offences u/s.147, 148, 341, 120-B, 307, 302 IPC read with 25[1][b] of Indian Arms Act and u/s.5 of the Explosive Substances Act on the file of the Uthannapalli Police Station. The Detaining Authority, viz., the District Collector and District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District is also one and the same in all these matters and as such, the above Habeas Corpus Petitions have been taken together for final hearing and for passing the following common order.
2. Totally 17 Detention Orders have been passed by the Detaining Authority on the following respective dates:-
[a] Four detention orders were passed on 04.09.2012 by the Detaining Authority, viz., the District Collector and District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District in HCP.Nos.2191/2012; 2199/2012; 2232/2012 and 2328/2012. The detenus and their relationship with the respective petitioners in the said petitions are as follows:-
[b] On 15.09.2012, the Detaining Authority has passed five detention orders in HCP.Nos.2327/2012; 2329/2012; 2330/2012; 2332/2012 and 2333/2012. The detenus and their relationship with the respective petitioners in the said petitions are as follows:-
[c] The Detaining Authority also passed a Detention order on 24.09.2012 in HCP.No.2276/2012 and the detenu and his relationship with the petitioner is as follows:-
[d] On 15.10.2012, the Detaining Authority has passed four detention orders in HCP.Nos.2429/2012; 2489/2012; 2490/2012 and 2492/2012 and the detenus and their relationship with the respective petitioners in the said petitions are as follows:-
[e] Lastly, on 30.10.2012, the Detaining Authority has passed three detention orders in HCP.Nos.2509/2012; 2510/2012 and 2511/2012. The detenus and their relationship with the respective petitioners in the said petitions are as follows:-
3. Ramachandran, detenu in HCP.No.2276/2012, is a sitting Member of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly [M.L.A] from Thalli Constituency, Krishnagiri District. Laghumaiah [detenu in HCP.No.2191/2012] is the father-in-law; Varadharajan [detenu in HCP.No.2199/2012] is the elder brother and Kesavan [detenu in HCP.No.2327/2012] is the brother-in-law of the detenu Ramachandran. The above detenus have been implicated in the ground case in Cr.No.143/2012 on the allegation of conspiracy.
4. Apart from the above said detenus, Periasamy [detenu in HCP.No.2328/2012]; Purushothaman @ Purushothamareddy [detenu in HCP.No.2232/2012] and Kalil [detenu in HCP.No.2330/2012] also alleged to have participated in the conspiracy. The other detenus alleged to have been involved directly in the occurrence in the ground case in Cr.No.143/2012.
5. The occurrence in the ground case is said to have taken place on 05.07.2012 at 5.00 a.m. in the agricultural fields of the deceased in Palepuram and in the said occurrence, two of the accused persons who have been directly alleged to have been participated said to have used country made guns and the other accused said to have used deadly weapons, viz., aruvals and country made bombs resulting in the death of the deceased Palanisamy. Against the detenus, the Detaining Authority also noticed certain adverse cases registered against them earlier along with the ground case. On a perusal of the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority, viz., the District Collector and District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District, has arrived at the subjective satisfaction and came to the conclusion that there is an imminent possibility of the detenus to come out on bail and on such an event, they would indulge in further activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order an
