M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Alli – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department – 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 relating to the detention order dated 23.07.2022 passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.88 of 2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner''s son Appuraj @ Appu, son of Anbazhagan, aged 28 years, who is presently undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.)
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 23.07.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.88 of 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 traffic offende
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 ....
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 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 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 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 ....
Unexplained delay between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention rendered the impugned detention order unacceptable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention in preventive detention cases, with a fo....
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.
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.