Back
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
M. Kavitha – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Additional 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 entire records in connection with the detention order passed bin C.O.C.No.27/2022 dated 20.07.2022 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Manikandan, S/o.Gurusamy, male aged 39 years, who is detained in Central Prison, thiruchirappalli 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 the wife of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 20.07.2022 bearing reference C.O.C.No.27/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fifth 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 traffic offenders, Sand-offenders
The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict requirement of timely communication of grounds for a detention order under Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982, ensuring the detenu's oppo....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with the statutory mandate of communicating the grounds for preventive detention to the detenu within the specified tim....
Mandatory communication of grounds for detention within the specified time frame and the requirement for a 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention.
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 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 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 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 delay in considering the representation can vitiate a preventive detention order, and must be decided qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
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,....
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
