M. SUNDAR, R. SAKTHIVEL
Shakila – Appellant
Versus
Additional Chief 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 relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to order made in BCDFGISSSV No.206/2022 dated 01.12.2022 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenu A.Ajith Kumar @ Gana Ajith, son of Arumugam, aged about 23 years, who is detained 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 mother of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 01.12.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.206/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned preventive 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 preventive detention order has been made under ''The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boo
The impaired subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the detenu's imminent possibility of being enlarged on bail led to the setting aside of the impugned preventive detention ord....
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.
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 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 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 subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the grounds for preventive detention must be based on valid and relevant considerations.
Preventive detention is not a punishment, and failure to comply with statutory requirements, such as informing the detenu's near relatives of his arrest, can vitiate a detention order.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in a preventive detention order must be based on adequate material, and that prevent....
Preventive detention is not a punishment and should be carefully applied, ensuring the proper application of mind by the Detaining Authority.
The impairment of the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation and the principle that preventive detention is not a punishment.
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.