SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1052

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. MURALI SHANKAR, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
N. Fathima @ Laila & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department & Ors. - Respondents
H.C.P.(MD) Nos. 1121, 980, 1166, 1167, 1202, 1218, 1223, 1227, 1265, 1274, 1300, 1304, 1321, 1322, 1334, 1380, 1465, 1485 & 1926 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No. 13660 of 2023 in H.C.P.(MD) No. 1121 of 2022
Decided On : 28-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Pragalathan N., Mr. M. Jegadeesh Pandian, for Mr. Karunakaran K.M., Mr. R. Alagumani, Mr. A. Arunprasad, Mr. R. Mariappan, Mr. S.P. Veerapandi, Mr. K.M. Karunakaran, M/s.G.Cenil, Mr. P. Balasubramanian, Mr. R. Ilayaraja, Mr. R. Karunanidhi, Mr. Niranjan S. Kumar, Mr. S. Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. N. Pragalathan.

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.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 20, 21, and 22 - Preventive detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 - The High Court addressed the legality of detention orders stemming from issues related to failure to inform family about arrest and non-supply of documents. The right to personal liberty and the conditions under which preventive detention is valid were examined, emphasizing the distinction between punitive and preventive detention. Non-intimation of arrest does not generally invalidate a detention order unless it affects the detenu’s representation rights. Similarly, failing to provide all materials concerning related cases does not automatically render a detention order illegal. (Paras 1, 3, 5, 31, 49)

Facts of the case:
Multiple Habeas Corpus petitions challenged detention orders under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982, focusing on the procedural safeguards for detainees.

Findings of Court:
The court emphasized that non-intimation of arrest and non-furnishing of certain documents do not inherently obstruct the legal rights of detainees unless demonstrated to affect their representation rights.

Issues: The main questions included whether the non-intimation of arrest affects detention legality and if failing to provide all related materials invalidates the detention order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that personal liberty must be balanced against public order, establishing that procedural shortcomings relate only to the detenu's awareness and ability to challenge the detention.

Result: The issues were answered in the negative, affirming that the detention orders would not be invalidated on the cited grounds.

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 this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

Prayer in HCP(MD) No. 980/ 2022 :

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to detention order R2 made in his proceedings in P.D.No.56/2022 dt.27.5.2022 in detaining the detenu under sec.2(f) TN Act 14/1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the Respondents to produce the detenu namely Saminathan, S/o. Mani, age 30 years who is detained at Central Prison, Trichy.

Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1166/ 2022 :

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased H2-GO To detention order of the R2 in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.48/2022 dt 04/07/2022 and quash same and direct respondents to produce the body or person of detenu name Vasanthakumar @ Karuvayan S/o. Nallathambi aged 23, now detained as Goonda at madurai Central Prison before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1167/ 2022 :

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased H2-Go. Detention order of the R2 in BCDFGISSSV.No.47/2022 dt. 4.7.22 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Sasikumar S/o. Jeyakumar age 26 yrs now detained as "Goonda" at Madurai Central Prison before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1202/ 2022 :

Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to detention Order made in P.D.No.60/2022 dt.28.5.2022 U/s.2(f) of TN Act 14/1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the Respondents to produce the detenu namely, Batcha @ Rajaselvam, S/o. Rajappa, aged 29 years, detained at Central Prison, Trichy.

Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1218/ 2022 :

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased H2-DO to detention order No.63/2022 dt 30/06/2022 on file of R2 herein and quash same and direct respondents to produce the detenu ie, Palanichamy, aged 57, S/o. Mayandi Thevar, now detained at Central Prison, Madurai before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1223/ 2022 :

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased H2-GO. To the D.O. passed by the R2 in D.O. H.S.(M) Confdl.No.125/2022, Dt. 28.06.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue Karuppasamy alias Ottai S/o. Muthu, male aged 21 years who is detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top