Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam, JJ.
Rethinam -Petitioner
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department and ors. – Respondents
H.C.P.No.1755 of 2024
Decided On : 27-08-2024
HABEAS CORPUS - DETENTION ORDER - The court quashed the detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, emphasizing the absence of public disorder and the prolonged detention of the individual without sufficient grounds, thereby reinforcing the principle that preventive detention must be justified by immediate threats to public safety.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the detention order issued against his son, Thalapathi, who had been detained for approximately 8 months under preventive detention laws. The detention order was based on four criminal cases, with only one case being recent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was unnecessary as there was no element of public disorder present and that the criminal cases could be addressed through regular legal proceedings.
Issues: Whether the detention order was justified under the circumstances, particularly in light of the absence of public disorder and the length of detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that preventive detention must be justified by a clear and present danger to public safety, and that prolonged detention without such justification is impermissible.
Result: The court set aside the detention order and ordered the immediate release of the detenue, Thalapathi, unless he was required for other legal matters.
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 relating to the detention order in Cr.M.P.No.05/2024, dated 26.02.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Thalapathi S/o.Rethinam aged about 34 years, the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Thiruchirapalli before this Court and set him at liberty.
The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in Cr.M.P.No.05/2024, dated 26.02.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the detenu in the present case, Mr.Thalapathy was arrested on 25.01.2024. The detention order has been issued on 26.02.2024. The detenu is under going imprisonment under preventive detention law for about 8 months.
3. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the detenu has involved in 53 criminal cases, only four cases are relied on for the purpose of issuing impugned detention order.
4. However, the first adverse case was registered in the year 2021 relating to Crime No.126 of 2021 under Section 397 of Indian Penal Code. Second adverse case was registered in March, 2022 and the third case in April, 2022 and fourth case in January 2024. Expect one adverse case, all other three adverse cases have no close proximity with the ground case. Thus, the two criminal cases are capable of being proceeded with under the law of the land.
5. An element of public disorder is missing in the present case and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of detention impugned became unnecessary. More so, the detenu is in prison for about 8 months and the criminal case can be dealt with in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in Cr.M.P.No.05/2024, dated 26.02.2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Thalapathi, S/o. Rethinam, aged 34 years, now confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
Preventive detention must be justified by a clear and immediate threat to public order, and reliance on remote past cases is insufficient to uphold such detention.
A Writ of Habeas Corpus becomes moot when the detention order has been revoked by the competent authority.
A Habeas Corpus petition becomes moot when the detention order under which the individual was held is revoked by the competent authority.
Preventive detention must be based on a clear and proximate threat to public order, and reliance on outdated or irrelevant cases is insufficient to justify such detention.
A Habeas Corpus petition becomes moot when the detention order under challenge is revoked by the competent authority.
A Habeas Corpus petition becomes moot when the detention order being challenged is revoked by the competent authority.
Unexplained delay in passing a detention order can lead to the setting aside of the order, as established in Sushanta Kumar Banik's case.
The revocation of detention orders by the competent authority negates the need for habeas corpus proceedings.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
