Back
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Babu – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to 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 entire records relating to the petitioner''s father detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 01.09.2022 on the file of second respondent herein and made in proceedings D.O.No.C2/47/2022 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner''s father namely Boopathi son of Tholan, aged about 32 years before this Court and set the petitioner''s father at liberty from detention, now the petitioner''s father detained in Central Prison, Cuddalore.)
M. Sundar, J.
1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by son of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 01.09.2022 bearing reference D.O.No.C2/47/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fifth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention
The delay in considering the representation point in challenges to preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively but qualitatively based on the facts, circumstances, and the trajectory....
The delay in considering the representation can vitiate a preventive detention order, and must be decided qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
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 a representation against a preventive detention order, which vitiates the impugned detention order.
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....
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 representation in preventive detention cases cannot be decided quantitatively but qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
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
