M. SUNDAR, N. ANAND VENKATESH
Roobi – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(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 in Memo No.95/BCDFGISSSV/2022, dated 05.08.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner''s son Ajith Kumar, s/o. Murugan aged about 27 years the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon''ble Court and set the petitioner''s son Ajith Kumar, s/o.Murugan aged about 27 years the detenu herein at liberty.)
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by mother of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 05.08.2022 bearing reference No.95/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 B
Preventive detention is not a punishment, and failure to comply with statutory requirements, such as informing the detenu's near relatives of his arrest, can vitiate a detention order.
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 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....
The impairment of the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation and the principle that preventive detention is not a punishment.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for a preventive detention order must be supported by adequate material, and the lack o....
The impaired subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the detenu's imminent possibility of being enlarged on bail led to the setting aside of the impugned preventive detention ord....
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 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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.