S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Govindammal – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. 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 in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 04.07.2024 in his office Ref.C3.D.O.No.33/2024 against the petitioner's son by name Thiru.Venkatesan, S/o. Nadarajan, aged about 32 years, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the above said detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.]
The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in his office Ref.C3.D.O.No.33/2024 dated 04.07.2024, 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 seven days in considering the representation. The delay in considering the representation and the period during which the detenu was under detention would be construed as violation of the Constitutional mandatory unde
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 considering representations in preventive detention violate constitutional rights, necessitating quashing of detention orders.
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....
Unexplained delays in preventive detention orders and representation consideration violate constitutional rights, rendering detention illegal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the constitutional obligation and procedural safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the need for expeditious c....
Unexplained delay in considering the petitioner's representation can vitiate the detention order, citing procedural safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and the....
Procedural adherence in preventive detention is crucial; delays infringe on personal liberty and can invalidate detention orders.
Timely consideration of representations in preventive detention is crucial to uphold individual liberties and prevent arbitrary state action.
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.