Back
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Mookkammal – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order Memo No.BCDFGISSSV No.109/2022 dated 06.09.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce Mukesh Raja, son of Arumugam, male aged 28 years now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Hon''ble Court and set the detenu Mukesh Raja, son of Arumugam, male aged 28 years at liberty.)
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.,
1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by mother of the detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 06.09.2022 bearing reference No.109/BCDFGISSSV/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as the impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.
2. Impugned detention order has been made under ''The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, F
The impairment of the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation and the principle that preventive detention is not a punishment.
The impairment of the detenu's right to make an effective representation against a preventive detention order is a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and can lead to the setting ....
Non-application of mind by the detaining authority in making a preventive detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982.
The Constitutional safeguard ingrained in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India ensures the detenu's right to make an effective representation against a preventive detention order.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of relief through a Habeas Corpus Petition based on similar grounds as in a previous case.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the violation of the detenu's right to make an effective representation, which is a Constitutional safeguard ingrained in Clause (5) of Article ....
The court emphasized the importance of specific aspects of the ground case in discretionary relief of grant of bail, and the lack of support for the detaining authority's grounds.
The delay in considering the representation against preventive detention orders must be decided qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances, and a delay of four days was found to vitiate the i....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding the detenu's right to make an effective representation as a Constitutional safeguard ingrained in Clause (5) of Arti....
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
