M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Sellamma – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & 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 impugned order of detention dated 05.07.2022 vide Memo No.67/BCDFGISSSV/2022 passed by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to set forth the detenu Srinivasan, aged 31 years, now confined in Central Prison – II, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.)
M. Sundar, J.
Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by wife of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 05.07.2022 bearing reference 67/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, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-g
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 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 ....
The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the grounds for preventive detention must be based on valid and relevant considerations.
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 impairment of the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation and the principle that preventive detention is not a punishment.
Preventive detention is not a punishment and should be carefully applied, ensuring the proper application of mind by the Detaining Authority.
The live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is crucial in assessing the validity of a preventive detention order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention in preventive detention cases, and the s....
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 importance of establishing a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, particularly in cases of unexplained delay, in the context of preventive detent....
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.