M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Pakkiyanathan – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, 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 entire records relating to the petitioner''s son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 21.08.2022 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo Cr.M.P.No.08/2022 [Drug Offender], quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner''s son namely Ajith, s/o.Pakkiyanathan, aged 25 years before this Court and set the petitioner''s son at liberty from detention, now the petitioner''s son detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.)
M. Sundar, J.
Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' (''HCP'' for the sake of brevity) has been filed by father of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 21.08.2022 bearing reference Cr.M.P.No.08/2022 [Drug Offender]'' (hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience). To be noted, fifth 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
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 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 violation of the detenu's right to make an effective representation, which is a Constitutional safeguard ingrained in Clause (5) of Article ....
The impairment of the detenu's right to make an effective representation against a preventive detention order constitutes a violation of the detenu's constitutional safeguard enshrined in Clause (5) ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Detaining Authority to properly apply its mind in making a preventive detention order and the recognition that preventive d....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the incomplete furnishing of crucial documents to the detenu impairs the detenu's right to make an effective representation, rendering the det....
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 impairment of the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation and the principle that preventive detention is not a punishment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that reliance on an illegible document for passing a detention order deprives the detenu of an opportunity to make an effective representation, lea....
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.