Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, R. SAKTHIVEL, JJ.
Vasanthi & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Ors. - Respondents
H.C.P. Nos. 1407 & 1410 of 2023
Decided On : 29-08-2023
Habeas Corpus - Preventive Detention Orders - Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 - Section 8(1) - The court found that the impugned preventive detention orders were vitiated due to violation of Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982, which mandates communication of grounds of detention to the detenu within five days. The court held that the grounds booklet containing the material forming the basis of the preventive detention order should be included in the communication of grounds. The court relied on legal principles established in M. Shylaja Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, Smt. Shalini Soni Etc vs. Union of India & Ors. Etc, Malleeswari Vs. State Government, Mageswari Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, and Velammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu to support its decision to set aside the preventive detention orders.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered two Habeas Corpus Petitions (HCPs) challenging preventive detention orders dated 30.06.2023 made under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The petitions contended that the detention orders were served on the detenus on the same day as the order's date, resulting in a violation of Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned preventive detention orders were vitiated due to the violation of Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982, which mandates communication of grounds of detention to the detenu within five days. The court held that the grounds booklet containing the material forming the basis of the preventive detention order should be included in the communication of grounds. The court relied on legal principles established in M. Shylaja Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, Smt. Shalini Soni Etc vs. Union of India & Ors. Etc, Malleeswari Vs. State Government, Mageswari Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, and Velammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu to support its decision to set aside the preventive detention orders.
Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance with Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982, specifically regarding the communication of grounds of detention to the detenus within five days, including the grounds booklet containing the material forming the basis of the preventive detention order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982, which mandates the communication of grounds of detention to the detenu within five days, including the grounds booklet containing the material forming the basis of the preventive detention order. The court relied on legal principles established in M. Shylaja Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, Smt. Shalini Soni Etc vs. Union of India & Ors. Etc, Malleeswari Vs. State Government, Mageswari Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, and Velammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu to support its decision to set aside the preventive detention orders.
Final Decision: The court allowed both Habeas Corpus Petitions, setting aside the impugned preventive detention orders and directing the detenus to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case/cases. There was no order as to costs.
ORDER :
M. Sundar, J.
[Prayer in HCP No.1407 of 2023: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 30.06.2023 in D.O.No.65/2023-C2 against the petitioner's husband Viji @ Vijaykumar, Male, aged 39 years, S/o. Sivanandam, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.]
[Prayer in HCP No.1410 of 2023: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 30.06.2023 in D.O.No.66/2023-C2 against the petitioner grandpa's daughter Nirmala, female, aged 34 years, W/o.Suresh, who is confined at Special Prison for Women, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set at liberty.]
This common order will now govern and dispose of captioned two 'Habeas Corpus Petitions' ('HCPs' in plural and 'HCP' in singular for the sake of convenience and clarity). This Court makes it clear that for the sake of further clarity, 'H.C.P. No.1407 of 2023' shall be referred to as 'I HCP' and 'H.C.P. No.1410 of 2023' shall be referred to as 'II HCP' wherever necessary.
2. I HCP was listed in the Admission Board on 28.07.2023 and II HCP was listed in the Admission Board on 31.07.2023. The two Admission Board orders read as follows :
| I HCP |
|
| ' | H.C.P.No.1407 of 2023 |
| M.SUNDAR. J., AND R.SAKTHIVEL. J.,
In the captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] Mr. V. Paarthiban, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.D.Balaji, counsel on record for the habeas corpus petitioner is before this Court. 2. Learned counsel submits that captioned HCP assails a 'preventive detention order dated 30.06.2023 bearing reference D.O.No.65/2023-C2' [hereinafter 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] made by the 'second respondent District Collector' [hereinafter 'Detaining Authority' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity]. It is submitted that impugned preventive detention order has been made by the Detaining Authority under the 'Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982' (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982) [hereinafter 'Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of brevity] branding the detenu as a 'Bootlegger' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. To be noted, spouse of the detenu is the Habeas Corpus Petitioner before us. 3. In the Admission Board, learned counsel Mr. V. Paarthiban, predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on two points and they are as follows: (i) Impugned preventive detention order is dated 30.06.2023, the same has been served on the detenu on the same day i.e., 30.06.2023. Therefore, the detention of the detenu pursuant to the impugned preventive detention order (within the meaning of Section 8(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) is also 30.06.2023. Proceedings of the Detaining Authority i.e., proceedings which sets out the grounds /substratum based on which the impugned preventive detention order has been made has also been served on the detenu on 30.06.2023. Learned counsel submits that the impugned preventive detention order is based on one adverse case (occurrence on 22.03.2023) and one ground case (occurrence on 28.05.2023). I | |
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982, which mandates the communication of grounds of detention to the detenu within....
The impairment of subjective satisfaction and non-application of mind in the grounds of the impugned preventive detention orders led to the dislodgement of the orders, emphasizing the importance of u....
Mandatory communication of grounds for detention within the specified time frame and the requirement for a 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding the detenu's rights, including adequate notice for hearings, provision of necessary legal documents, and consideration ....
Failure to inform detained individuals of their arrest and not supplying documents does not automatically invalidate detention under preventive law unless it hinders effective legal representation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
