S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, R. SAKTHIVEL
Samundeeswari – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department – Respondent
ORDER :
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
[PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in Detention order C3/D.No. 39/2024 dated 08.07.2024 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenue Bannu @ Sarathkumar, M/A 38 years, son of Sabapathi, now confined in Central Prison, Vellore before this Court and set him at liberty.]
The impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent in proceedings No. C3/D.O.No.39/2024 dated 08.07.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus petition.
2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would mainly contend that there was a delay in considering the representation submitted by the detenue under Act 14 of 1982.
3. Delay in considering the representation is vital, more specifically in preventive detention cases. The detention power conferred under Act is extremely powerful and that have the ability to confer arbitrary power to the State. In such circumstances, where there is a possibility of an unfattered discretion of power by the Government, the Court must analyse cases
Timely consideration of representations in preventive detention is crucial to uphold individual liberties and prevent arbitrary state action.
Timely consideration of representations in preventive detention is crucial to uphold individual liberties as mandated by the Constitution.
Procedural adherence in preventive detention is crucial; delays infringe on personal liberty and can invalidate detention orders.
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....
Procedural adherence in preventive detention is crucial to safeguard individual liberties, and any delay in representation consideration can lead to quashing of detention orders.
Procedural adherence in preventive detention is crucial; delays infringe on personal liberty under Article 21.
Procedural lapses in preventive detention, such as delays in representation consideration, infringe on personal liberty and invalidate detention orders.
Timely consideration of representations in preventive detention cases is crucial to uphold individual liberties and prevent arbitrary state action.
Strict adherence to procedural safeguards in preventive detention is essential to protect individual liberties, and any delay in representation consideration can invalidate detention orders.
Procedural safeguards in preventive detention are crucial to protect individual liberties, and any delay in considering representations can invalidate detention orders.
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.