M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Poonkodi – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to 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 records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 22.04.2022 in C.M.P.No.29/Goonda/Salem City/2022 against the petitioner son Mohanraj @ Suruttaiyan, male aged 31 years, son of Mariappan who is confined at Central Prison, Salem and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him 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 22.04.2022 bearing reference C.M.P.No.29/Goonda/Salem City/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, Immoral
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 subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the grounds for preventive detention must be based on valid and relevant considerations.
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 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....
Preventive detention is not a punishment and should be carefully applied, ensuring the proper application of mind by the Detaining Authority.
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 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 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.
The impairment of the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation and the principle that preventive detention is not a punishment.
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.
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.