M. SUNDAR, R. SAKTHIVEL
Malar – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, to call for the records pertaining to the order of Detention dated 15.02.2023 passed by the 2nd Respondent in No.43/BCDFGISSSV/2023 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the Detenu Mr.Raju @ Arokkiyaraju S/o.Mahendran, male aged about 39 years now confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal ,Chennai before this Hon''ble 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 07.07.2023, this Court made the following order:
''H.C.P.No.1170 of 2023
M.SUNDAR, J.
and
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
(Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,)
Captioned Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed in this Court on 27.06.2023 inter alia assailing a ''detention order dated 15.02.2023 bearing reference No.43/BCDFGISSSV/2023'' [hereinafter ''impugned preventive detention order'' for the sak
The flawed subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority regarding the possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail vitiates the preventive detention order.
The flawed exercise of comparing a default bail order with the ground case and the principle that preventive detention is not a punishment.
The impairment of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the detenue's imminent possibility of being enlarged on bail led to the setting aside of the impugned preventive det....
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 issuing a detention order can break the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, rendering the detention order invalid.
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 constitutional safeguard ingrained in Article 22(5) of the Constitution ensures the detenu's right to make an effective representation, and any infraction of such a safeguard vitiates the impugne....
The infraction of the detenu's right to make an effective representation against a preventive detention order vitiates the order, rendering it liable for dislodgement in a habeas legal drill.
The principle of live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is crucial in determining the validity of a preventive detention order.
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.