IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, R. SAKTHIVEL, JJ.
Shanthalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai & Others – Respondents
H.C.P. No. 288 of 2023
Decided On : 10-07-2023
Habeas Corpus Petition - Detention Order under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982 - Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC - Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India - [Act 14 of 1982, IPC, Article 22(5)] - The court allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition, setting aside the impugned preventive detention order due to inordinate delay and discrepancies in the Adjudication and Remand Extension Order, which impaired the detenu's right to make an effective representation, thus violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The Habeas Corpus Petition challenged a detention order made under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, based on alleged offenses under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC. The petitioner contended that there was inordinate delay in passing the detention order and discrepancies in the Adjudication and Remand Extension Order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the discrepancies in the Adjudication and Remand Extension Order impaired the detenu's right to make an effective representation, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. As a result, the impugned preventive detention order was set aside, and the detenu was directed to be set at liberty.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were the inordinate delay in passing the detention order and the discrepancies in the Adjudication and Remand Extension Order, which affected the detenu's right to make an effective representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the violation of the detenu's right to make an effective representation, as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, due to discrepancies in the Adjudication and Remand Extension Order.
Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, and the impugned preventive detention order was set aside. The detenu was directed to be set at liberty, and no costs were awarded.
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 for habeas corpus petitioner is before us. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that ground case qua the detenu is for alleged offences under Sections 406, 420 r/w. 34 of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] in Crime No.224 of 2022 on the file of Central Crime Branch-I, Job Racket Prevention Wing, Chennai.
4. The aforementioned detention order has been made on the premise that the detenu is a ''Goonda'' under Section 2(f) of ''The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)'' [hereinafter ''Act 14 of 1982'' for the sake of convenience and clarity].
5.The detention order has been assailed inter alia on the ground that there is an inordinate delay in passing the detention order by the detaining authority.
6. Prima facie case made out for admission. Admit. Issue Rule nisi returnable by four weeks.
7. Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Tamil Nadu accepts notice for all respondents. List the captioned Habeas Corpus Petition accordingly.''
2. The aforementioned order made in the 27.02.2023 Admission listing shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order which means that the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the order in the Admission listing shall be used in the instant order also.
3. There are two adverse cases. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.224 of 2022 on the file of Central Crime Branch I for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.
4. Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
5. As would be evident from the aforementioned 27.02.2023 order (more particularly paragraph 5 thereat) at the time of admission, learned counsel projected the point that there is inordinate delay in making the impugned preventive detention order but in the final hearing today, learned counsel on record for HCP petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on one point and that one point is different dates being given in the Adjudication and Remand Extension Order which is in English and the Tamil translation of the same.
6. Elaborating on the aforesaid point, learned c
AI
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 ....
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.