Back
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Pushpa – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By 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 calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.321/BCDFGISSSV/2002, dated 19.09.2022 passed by the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner''s son Rohan @ Palli, son of Doss, aged about 32 years, the detenu now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the detenu at liberty.)
M. Sundar, 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 19.09.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.321 of 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,
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the incomplete furnishing of crucial documents to the detenu impairs the detenu's right to make an effective representation, rendering the det....
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 constitutes a violation of the detenu's constitutional safeguard enshrined in Clause (5) ....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that reliance on an illegible document for passing a detention order deprives the detenu of an opportunity to make an effective representation, lea....
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 point in challenges to preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively but qualitatively based on the facts, circumstances, and the trajectory....
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 delay in considering a representation against a preventive detention order, which vitiates the impugned detention order.
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
