Back
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Mallika – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.36/2022 dated 23.11.2022 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu Ramesh, son of Subramaniyan, aged about 37 years, petitioner''s son now confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.)
M. Sundar, J.
Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' (''HCP'' for the sake of brevity) has been filed by mother of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 23.11.2022 bearing reference Cr.M.P.No.36/2022'' (hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience). To be noted, fifth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority.
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, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)'' [hereinafter '
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 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 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 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 ....
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 impairment of the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation and the principle that preventive detention is not a punishment.
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 failure to provide a correct translation of crucial documents in a language known to the detenu can impair the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation, rendering the det....
Failure to provide a translated copy of a crucial document in a language known to the detenu impairs the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation, rendering the detention ill....
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
