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
| 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.
Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad
D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal
A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras
Ameena Begum vs. State of Telegana and others
A.K. Roy vs. Union of India and others
Union of India vs. Ankit Ashok Jelan
Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal
Fagu Shaw vs. State of West Bengal
R. Tamilselvi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, H.C.P.(MD) No.1317 of 2023
Kamarunnissa v. Union of India
Union of India v. Paul Manickam
Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur
Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India
Noor Salman Makani v. Union of India
Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan
Shalini Soni v. Union of India
Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India
Khudiram Das v. State of W.B., (1975) 2 SCC 81 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 435 : 1975 (2) SCR 832, 848
AI
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....
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.