Back
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Susila – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to the 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 records of the detention made in D.O.No.67/2022 C-2 dated 26.07.2022 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate Thiruvannamalai District the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set the detenu Thiru.Murugan, son of Settu aged 27 years now confined in Central Prison, Vellore at liberty.)
M. Sundar, J.
1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by the mother of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 26.07.2022 bearing reference D.O.No.67/2022-C2'' [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 off
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....
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....
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 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's decision was based on the interpretation of the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail and the requirement of intimation of arrest to a near relative under Clause (5) o....
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 a representation against a preventive detention order, which vitiates the impugned detention order.
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
