Strict adherence to legal provisions and constitutional guarantees is essential in detention orders, and non-application of mind by the detaining authority can lead to the quashing of the detention order.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records pertaining to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in Detention order made in P.D.No.147/2022 dated 19.10.2022 under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely, Vishwa Prasath son of Power Singh, male aged 22 years detained at Central Prison, Trichy, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.)

M.S.RAMESH, J

1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Vishwa Prasad aged about 22 years, S/o.Power Singh. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.147/2022 dated 19.10.2022 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focussed his argument on the ground that the detaining authority was swayed by the fact that a bail petition may be filed before the competent Court by the detenu or his relatives in future.

4. The learned counel for the petitioner further submitted that the subjective satisfaction that has been arrived at by the detaining authority at Paragraph No.5 of the order that the mother of the detenu is taking steps to file bail application is not supported by any materials. Therefore, the same also suffers from non application of mind.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to substantiate the submissions, relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench reported in 2005 (2) LW 946 [K.Thirupathi v. District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District & another].

6. Counter affidavit has not been filed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents has strongly objected this petition.

7. Even though several grounds have been raised in the petition filed before this Court, this Court is inclined to consider the main ground that has been focussed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. The satisfaction that has been arrived at by the detaining authority is merely on surmises and it is not based on any materials that has been placed before the detaining authority. At this point of time, it will be relevant to take note of the Full Bench judgment, which has been referred supra.

9. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

“24. The detaining authority is required to follow strictly and scrupulously the forms and rules of law prescribed in that behalf or by the statutory provision under which the order of detention is being made after arriving at a subjective satisfaction. In the event of any deviation or violation of the statutory provisions or infraction of constitutional guarantees, the Courts will not hesitate to quash the orders of detention. Whatever be the jurisdiction to detain and the slightest infraction of the constitutional guarantee would lead to the detenu being set at liberty.

25. It is by now well settled that in all detention laws, the orders of detention and its continuance of detention should be in conformity with Article 22 of the Constitution of India and slightest infraction of the Constitutional protection enshrined therein would be a valid ground to set the detenu at liberty.

26. There must be cogent material before the Authority passing the detention order for inferring that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. This inference must be drawn from material on record and must not be the ipse dixit of the Authority passing the detention order.

27. In the case of a person in custo