M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Vignesh – Appellant
Versus
Additional Chief, Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) 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 in Detention order in No.89/B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V/2022 dt.23.07.2022 on the file of the 2nd respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the petitioner/detenue Vignesh S/o.Selvam aged 24 years now confined in Central Prison at Puzhal-II, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.)
M. Sundar, J.
1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [hereinafter ''HCP'' for the sake of convenience and brevity] has been filed by the detenu assailing ''detention order dated 23.07.2022 bearing reference Memo No.89/BCDFGISSSV/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience]. To be noted, the fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and the second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by the 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 offenders, Sand-offenders, Sex
The impairment of the detenu's right to make an effective representation against the impugned detention order, which is a constitutional safeguard ingrained in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constit....
The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the grounds for preventive detention must be based on valid and relevant considerations.
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 ....
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 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 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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for a preventive detention order must be supported by adequate material, and the lack o....
The incomplete translation of critical documents leading to the impairment of a detainee's constitutional safeguard can result in the dislodgment of a detention order.
The impairment of the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation and the principle that preventive detention is not a punishment.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in a preventive detention order must be based on adequate material, and that prevent....
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.