M. SUNDAR, N. ANAND VENKATESH
Malliga Kannan – Appellant
Versus
State represented by its The 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 records pertaining to the order of detention dated 08.08.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent in C.M.P.No.21/GOONDA/2022 (M1) and quash the same and produce the Karpoorapriyan @ Sri Karpoorapriyan aged about 20 years, has been detained as Goonda in C.M.P.No.21/GOONDA/2022 (M1), detained at Central Prison, Salem before this Hon''ble Court and set him at liberty.)
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by mother of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 08.08.2022 bearing reference C.M.P.No.21/GOONDA/2022(M1)'' [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 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 offen
Preventive detention is not a punishment and should be carefully applied, ensuring the proper application of mind by the Detaining Authority.
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 subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the grounds for preventive detention must be based on valid and relevant considerations.
The court emphasized the importance of specific aspects of the ground case in discretionary relief of grant of bail, and the lack of support for the detaining authority's grounds.
The live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is crucial in assessing the validity of a preventive detention order.
The unexplained delay in the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is a valid point of examination in preventive detention cases.
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 importance of establishing a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, particularly in cases of unexplained delay, in the context of preventive detent....
The main 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 preventive detention cases, with a fo....
The impaired subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the detenu's imminent possibility of being enlarged on bail led to the vitiation of the impugned preventive detention order.
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.