The central legal point established is the requirement for a detention order to be based on cogent material and to adhere strictly to statutory provisions and constitutional guarantees.

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 connected with the detention order of the respondent No.2 in detention Order No.22/2023 dated 21.02.2023 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenue by name Umadevi @ Murugeswari, Wife of Ranganathan, aged about 47 years now confined as Drug Offender at Madurai Central prison, before this Court and set her at liberty forthwith.)

Ramesh, J.

1. The petitioner is the detenue viz., Umadevi @ Murugeswari aged about 47 years, W/o.Ranganathan. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in detention Order No.22/2023 dated 21.02.2023 holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) 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 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. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

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. While passing the impugned detention order, the detaining authority had stated that the detenue had not filed any bail application till date, but, however, they have received a secret information that her relatives will file bail application before the competent Court very soon. Though the source of secret information may not be disclosed to the petitioner, the information as such ought to have been disclosed to the petitioner. The non supply of such a vital information may not be justifiable and hence, the detaining authority having arrived at the subjective satisfaction become questionable. 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