Back
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
S. Emithra – Appellant
Versus
State Represented By its 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 to call for the records leading to the detention of petitioner''s husband namely S.Suriya, son of Sekar, aged about 24 years, under Act 14/1982 vide detention order dated 25.07.2022 on the file of the second respondent made in proceedings in BCDFGISSSV No.112/2022, quash the same, consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of S.Suriya, son of Sekar, aged about 24 years, who is lodged at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 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 wife of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 25.07.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.112/2022'' [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
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....
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 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 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 can vitiate a preventive detention order, and must be decided qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The delay in considering a representation against a preventive detention order, which vitiates the impugned detention order.
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 ....
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 ....
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
