Back
G. JAYACHANDRAN, K. MURALI SHANKAR, C. KUMARAPPAN
N. Fathima @ Laila – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. habeas corpus petitions filed for various detenus. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. distinction between punitive detention and preventive detention. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 12 , 30) |
| 3. discussion on subjective satisfaction and legislative history. (Para 13 , 15) |
| 4. arguments made regarding informative process for detainees. (Para 17 , 19 , 21) |
| 5. procedure and individual rights under preventive detention statutes. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 6. requirements concerning notification and documentation in detention. (Para 31 , 32 , 38 , 48) |
| 7. final ruling on the legality of non-intimation. (Para 49) |
ORDER :
Dr. G. Jayachandran, K. Murali Shankar, C. Kumarappan, JJ.
[PRAYER IN H.C.P.(MD)No.1121 of 2022:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order passed in H.S.(M) Confdl.No.109 of 2022 dated 03.06.2022 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's son i.e., Ladan @ Binladan, aged about 19 years, S/o. Raja @ Nagor Hanifa, now detainined at the Central Prison Palayamkottai, before t
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.
The failure to supply legible documents to a detenue violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution, hindering effective representation and rendering the detention order illegal.
Preventive detention orders must provide all relevant documents to the detenue for effective representation; failure to do so invalidates the detention.
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of the likelihood of release and necessity for detention; vague assertions are insufficient.
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 ....
Preventive detention orders must be based on specific and substantiated grounds, with the detaining authority required to apply its mind independently to the facts of the case, and any significant de....
Preventive detention orders are invalidated if the detaining authority fails to supply legible copies of relied-upon documents, preventing an effective representation, or fails to record subjective s....
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....
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
