Back
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Maariyammal – Appellant
Versus
Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, 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 connected with the detention order of the second respondent in No.108/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 06.09.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of detenu namely Sudalaimuthu @ Venkatesh, S/o.Subbaiah, aged 22 years, detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.)
M. Sundar, 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.108/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 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
The delay in considering the representation against a preventive detention order can vitiate the impugned detention order if it infringes the detenu's rights.
The delay in considering a representation against a preventive detention order, which vitiates the impugned detention order.
Delay in considering a representation regarding a preventive detention order can vitiate the detention order and must be decided qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances.
The delay in considering the representation point in challenges to preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively, but has to be decided qualitatively based on the facts, circumstances,....
The delay in considering representation in preventive detention cases cannot be decided quantitatively but qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The delay in considering the representation against a preventive detention order must be justified and must not violate the detenu's rights under the Constitution of India.
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 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....
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
