S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
P. Manickam – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department – Respondent
ORDER :
(S.M. Subramaniam, J.) :
(Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the detention order vide proceedings No.B3/D.No.37/2024 dated 23.05.2024, on file of the 2nd respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's son Thiru.Anbarasu alias Anbu alias Kokki Anbu S/o. Manickam, male aged 42 years old, under Act 14 of 1982 as a “Sexual offender” under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, who now confined in Central Prison, Vellore before this Court and set him at liberty.)
The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.B3/D.No.37/2024 dated 23.05.2024, is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. The order of detention sought to be assailed and the fact as narrated would reveal that, there is a delay of three days in considering the representation. The delay in considering the representation and the period during which the detenu was under detention would be construed
The court established that delays in considering detenu representations violate Article 22, necessitating prompt action to uphold personal liberty.
The court established that unexplained delays in considering representations in preventive detention violate constitutional rights and can lead to the quashing of detention orders.
The court established that unexplained delays in considering representations in preventive detention cases violate constitutional rights and can lead to the quashing of detention orders.
Unexplained delays in preventive detention orders and representation consideration violate constitutional rights, rendering detention illegal.
Timely consideration of representations in preventive detention is crucial to uphold individual liberties and prevent arbitrary state action.
Procedural adherence in preventive detention is crucial; delays infringe on personal liberty and can invalidate detention orders.
Procedural lapses in preventive detention, such as delays in representation consideration, infringe on personal liberty and invalidate detention orders.
Procedural adherence in preventive detention is crucial; delays infringe on personal liberty under Article 21.
The court established that delays in the consideration of representations in preventive detention cases infringe upon the right to personal liberty, necessitating strict compliance with procedural sa....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the constitutional obligation of the government to consider representations without delay, emphasizing the history of insistence on procedural s....
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.