M. SUNDAR, R. SAKTHIVEL
Janagi – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying forissuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.C.No.04/G/IS/2023 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner''s son namely Murugesan, son of Mariyappan, aged about 31 years, who is presently undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Coimbatore as Goonda 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] came up for admission on 13.04.2023, this Bench made the following order:
Captioned Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed in this Court on 06.04.2023 inter alia assailing a detention order dated 11.01.2023 bearing reference C.No.04/G/IS/2023 made by ''second respondent'' [hereinafter ''Detaining Authority'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority.
2. Mother of the detenu is the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner s
The flawed exercise of comparing a default bail order with the ground case and the principle that preventive detention is not a punishment.
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.
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....
Unexplained delay in making a preventive detention order renders it unacceptable.
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 flawed subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority regarding the possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail vitiates the preventive detention order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention in the context of preventive detention....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of preventive detention, the 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention must be examined....
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 ....
Unexplained delay between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention rendered the impugned detention order unacceptable.
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.