M. SUNDAR, R. SAKTHIVEL
Umamageshwari – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to produce the body of the petitioner''s son namely Praveen @ Pallu Praveen, aged about 22 years, S/o.Sakthivel who is detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith by calling for the records pursuant to the detention order in Proceedings in Memo No.50/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 21.02.2023, on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same.)
M. Sundar, J.
1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by mother of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 21.02.2023 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.50/2023'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.
2. Impugned detention order has been made under ''The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic of
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 impaired subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the detenu's imminent possibility of being enlarged on bail led to the setting aside of the impugned preventive detention ord....
The reliance on a bail order granted during the Covid-19 situation to assess the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail impaired the subjective satisfaction of the detaining author....
Non-application of mind by the detaining authority in making a preventive detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982.
The court emphasized the importance of specific aspects of the ground case in discretionary relief of grant of bail, and the lack of support for the detaining authority's grounds.
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 ....
Preventive detention is not a punishment and should be carefully applied, ensuring the proper application of mind by the Detaining Authority.
The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the grounds for preventive detention must be based on valid and relevant considerations.
The unexplained delay in the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is a valid point of examination in preventive detention cases.
Unexplained delay in making a preventive detention order can lead to a lack of a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, rendering the detention order i....
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.