Back
M. SUNDAR, R. SAKTHIVEL
Shanthalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, 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 connection with the order of detention made in No.453/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 12.12.2022 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Thiru.Sasikumar, male, 46 years, son of Lakshmanan, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.)
M. Sundar, J.
1. When the captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' (hereinafter ''HCP'' for the sake of convenience and clarity) was listed in the Admission Board on 27.02.2023, this Court made the following order:
''Captioned Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed in this Court on 20.02.2023 inter alia assailing a detention order dated 12.12.2022 bearing reference No.453/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by ''second respondent'' [hereinafter ''Detaining Authority'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, third respondent is the Sponsoring Authority.
2.Wife of the detenu is the petitioner.
3.Mr.C.D.Sugumar, learned counsel on record fo
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding the detenu's right to make an effective representation, as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of Ind....
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 ....
Delay in considering a representation regarding a preventive detention order can vitiate the detention order and must be decided qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and ....
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 delay in considering representation in preventive detention cases cannot be decided quantitatively but qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The delay in considering a representation against a preventive detention order, which vitiates the impugned detention order.
Unexplained delay in passing a detention order can lead to the setting aside of the order, as established in Sushanta Kumar Banik's case.
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 ....
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
