Back
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Nisha – Appellant
Versus
State Rep by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, 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 in C.O.C.No.15/22 dated 23.06.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to produce the petitioner''s husband detenu namely Maheswaran, son of Subramani, aged about 26 years, who is now confined at Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli and set him at liberty.)
M. Sundar, J.,
1. This order will now dispose of the captioned matter.
2. This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 27.02.2023, which reads as follows:
‘In the captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [hereinafter ''HCP'' for the sake of convenience and clarity], a ''detention order dated 23.06.2022 bearing reference C.O.C.No.15/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] made by the jurisdictional District Collector, i.e., second respondent [hereinafter ''Detaining Authority'' for the sake of convenience] has been called in question by the wife of the detenu.
2. In and by
The sufficiency of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and the actions taken by the detenu's father in seeking bail were crucial in determining the legality of the detention order.
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 the requirement for the Detaining Authority to properly apply its mind in making a preventive detention order and the recognition that preventive d....
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 flawed exercise of comparing a default bail order with the ground case and the principle that preventive detention is not a punishment.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that reliance on an illegible document for passing a detention order deprives the detenu of an opportunity to make an effective representation, lea....
Unexplained delay in establishing the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention can lead to the invalidation of a preventive detention order.
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
