Back
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Malathi – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and 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 records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent on 12.09.2022 in C.M.P.No. 111/Goonda/Salem City/2022 against the petitioner''s husband Srirangan, Male, aged 43 years S/o. Perumal who is confined at Central Prison, Salem and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.)
M. Sundar, J.
1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' (''HCP'' for the sake of brevity) has been filed by wife of detenu / detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 12.09.2022 bearing reference C.M.P.No.111/Goonda/Salem City/2022'' (hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience). 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 of
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 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 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 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.
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 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 representation in preventive detention cases cannot be decided quantitatively but qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing a detenu with an effective representation and the violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
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
