Back
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Chinnathambi – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu, Represented by Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Exercise 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 relating to the detention order dated 16.04.2022 passed by the second respondent in C.No.22/G/IS/2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner''s son C.Manimaran, S/o.Chinnathambi, aged 40 years, who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Coimbatore before this Hon''ble 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 father of a detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 16.04.2022 bearing reference No.C.No.22/G/IS/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 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 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 ....
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....
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 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 subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the grounds for preventive detention must be based on valid and relevant considerations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Detaining Authority to properly apply its mind in making a preventive detention order and the recognition that preventive d....
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) ....
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
