M. SUNDAR, N. ANAND VENKATESH
Vignesh – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to the 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 father detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 25.08.2022 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo C.No.54/G/IS/2022, quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner-s father namely N.Raja @ Karuppusamy, S/o.Nagaraj, aged 49 years before this Hon’ble High Court and set the petitioner-s father at liberty from detention, now the petitioner-s father detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.)
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
Captioned -Habeas Corpus Petition- [-HCP- for the sake of brevity] has been filed by son of detenu assailing a -preventive detention order dated 25.08.2022 bearing reference C.No.54/G/IS/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
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 constitutes a violation of the detenu's constitutional safeguard enshrined in Clause (5) ....
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 unexplained delay between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is a crucial factor in assessing the validity of a preventive detention order.
Non-application of mind by the detaining authority in making a preventive detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982.
Unexplained delay in establishing the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention can lead to the invalidation of a preventive detention order.
The central 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 the context of preventive detent....
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 ....
Preventive detention is not a punishment and should be carefully applied, ensuring the proper application of mind by the Detaining Authority.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish a 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, and the unacceptability of ....
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.