Back
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Bakiyalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.168/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 24.06.2022 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 Thiru.Bharathidasan @ Psycho Bharathi, S/o.Ramamoorthy, aged about 22 years, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the petitioner''s son Thiru.Bharathidasan @ Psycho Bharathi, S/o.Ramamoorthy, aged about 22 years, the detenu herein at liberty.)
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 24.06.2022 bearing reference Memo No.168/BCDFGISSSV/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
The delay in considering a representation against a preventive detention order, which vitiates the impugned detention order.
The delay in considering the representation against a preventive detention order can vitiate the impugned detention order if it infringes the detenu's rights.
Delay in considering a representation regarding a preventive detention order can vitiate the detention order and must be decided qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances.
The delay in considering the representation against a preventive detention order must be justified and must not violate the detenu's rights under the Constitution of India.
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 delay in considering the representation point in challenges to preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively, but has to be decided qualitatively based on the facts, circumstances,....
The delay in considering representation in preventive detention cases cannot be decided quantitatively but qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
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....
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
